Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
Pesty said:
New evidence came to light found by his sister in law after being jailed for 3 months,
Police and cps believed an edited face book transcript by the so called victim but didn’t look at his face book to see the full meassages?
It took two years for his appeal trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Ma...
Looks like she broke up with her so to get him back accused him of rape.
Wonder how many more innocent men are in prison
Surely perverting the course of justice from the complainant and negligence for the police? Police and cps believed an edited face book transcript by the so called victim but didn’t look at his face book to see the full meassages?
It took two years for his appeal trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Ma...
Looks like she broke up with her so to get him back accused him of rape.
Wonder how many more innocent men are in prison
I question also the defence; they seem to be as technically incompetent as the police, i.e. not being able to dig up message history - the prosecution surely didn't ambush them at court with this?
I think if they have any lessons to learn it's that they are an investigative body and don't work for the prosecution...
andy_s said:
Surely perverting the course of justice from the complainant and negligence for the police?
I think if they have any lessons to learn it's that they are an investigative body and don't work for the prosecution...
The police are only looking for evidence to support a conviction.I think if they have any lessons to learn it's that they are an investigative body and don't work for the prosecution...
andy_s said:
Surely perverting the course of justice from the complainant and negligence for the police?
I question also the defence; they seem to be as technically incompetent as the police, i.e. not being able to dig up message history - the prosecution surely didn't ambush them at court with this?
I think if they have any lessons to learn it's that they are an investigative body and don't work for the prosecution...
Yep. I question also the defence; they seem to be as technically incompetent as the police, i.e. not being able to dig up message history - the prosecution surely didn't ambush them at court with this?
I think if they have any lessons to learn it's that they are an investigative body and don't work for the prosecution...
As to the defence bizarre isn’t it.
PurpleMoonlight said:
The police are only looking for evidence to support a conviction.
This appears to be the case but no doubt one or two PH members will be along shortly to deny it. Breadvan kindly linked to another write up about such matters and the first few points he made support he idea that police objectivity has been weakened if not done away with as a matter of policy. Interestingly although the author doesn't say it the "we believe you mantra" is part of the feminist ideology:https://crimbarrister.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/dis...
BOOM! 💥
The police approach to investigations in allegations involving anything sexual has become totally arse about face. The presumption of innocence which should apply to every criminal case, no matter what the alleged offence, seems to have gone out of the window, particularly where sex cases are concerned.
BOOM! 💥
This issue was identified in the report of Sir Richard Henriques which was published a year ago – see link here – in which the former senior judge highlighted that, in an apparent eagerness to increase the number of rape convictions under pressure from politicians and the media, the police appeared to have fallen into the trap of automatically treating all ‘complainants’ as ‘victims’ and repeating the mantra that ‘all victims must be believed’. Obviously this pre-supposes that all complaints are true and suggests that investigations should be conducted on this basis. This is plainly wrong and will undoubtedly have infected the mindset of officers investigating such allegations.
BOOM! 💥
The police have to stop adhering to the ‘we believe you’ mantra: they have no business usurping the function of the jury to decide whether a complainant is to be believed or not, just as I do not have to believe what anyone I defend tells me. This is not my role. And it’s not just me who thinks this. An ex-DPP has been publicly saying this today too: see the link here.
BOOM! 💥
The recommendations of the Henriques report appear to have fallen by the wayside, because senior police officers and the College of Policing didn’t seem to like its conclusions. The recommendations should be brought into effect as soon as possible and the police told to point themselves in the right direction.
BOOM! 💥
If the police have jettisoned all objectivity in such investigations, then the concept needs to be reintroduced and quickly. From what those of us working at the coalface see regularly, there are some (not all) officers dealing with sexual allegations in particular who lose all perspective and get too personally involved with the case and the complainants. Recently, as verdicts were returned in a multi-complainant sex case in which I defended, the officer in the case burst into tears in front of the jury. Such incidents suggest that some police involved in these cases might be all too keen to ‘sit on’ evidence which undermined the complainants with whom they had built up such a personal relationship.
Pesty said:
New evidence came to light found by his sister in law after being jailed for 3 months,
Police and cps believed an edited face book transcript by the so called victim but didn’t look at his face book to see the full meassages?
It took two years for his appeal trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Ma...
Looks like she broke up with her so to get him back accused him of rape.
Wonder how many more innocent men are in prison
The headline says it allPolice and cps believed an edited face book transcript by the so called victim but didn’t look at his face book to see the full meassages?
It took two years for his appeal trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Ma...
Looks like she broke up with her so to get him back accused him of rape.
Wonder how many more innocent men are in prison
DM said:
Yet ANOTHER rape case disgrace: Man, 26, has his conviction quashed after spending two years in jail after bombshell Facebook messages missed by police prove his innocence
You shouldnt need to prove your innocenceYou should only be found guilty if the evidence stacks up
Why did it stack up in this case when the guy was innocent?
How many others are in the same boat but unable to find a get off the hook facebook page
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 31st December 19:44
Mojooo said:
So once again the archived facebook record shows things are not what they seem.A lot of weight was placed on the presumably accurate facebook record yet when he disputed that he was not believed
Where's the taking into account reasonable doubt
Breadvan72 said:
The Daily Mail praised the defence Counsel in the Liam Allen case but ruined it by referring to her as a "female barrister". The correct term for a female barrister is "barrister".
Assuming you are a dude. Would you mind being referred to as a "male barrister"? If not why are you looking for a problem here? I used to date a midwife. She told me about her colleague which happened to be male. Customers/patients often pointed out the gender of this person as it was unusual. There were no special campaigns or appeals to get more male midwives - but then people didn't go around looking to make a point out of it either.
saaby93 said:
So once again the archived facebook record shows things are not what they seem.
A lot of weight was placed on the presumably accurate facebook record yet when he disputed that he was not believed
Where's the taking into account reasonable doubt
Well firstly he (in theory) had access to his own records. the Police say they were with the girl when she printed her side of it - so if he disputed it he could have produced his own version. He says the Police had his PC and could have looked up his archive. But we don't know if they were asked to.A lot of weight was placed on the presumably accurate facebook record yet when he disputed that he was not believed
Where's the taking into account reasonable doubt
Lets say that when the Police produced the girls side, the suspect said well no that is not the full conversation he could have asked them to contact Facebook to get the original text but Facebook generally won't help UK law enforcement without very expensive/protected court orders obtained in the USA.
For there to reasonable doubt I suspect you need something more than 'it wasn't me' or 'the records ain't right' - the evidence they had would have looked strong in the absence of his own records. I suspect what also did it for him was that he was also accused of another rape and that probably affected the jury a little even though he was found not guilty.
Mojooo said:
saaby93 said:
So once again the archived facebook record shows things are not what they seem.
A lot of weight was placed on the presumably accurate facebook record yet when he disputed that he was not believed
Where's the taking into account reasonable doubt
Well firstly he (in theory) had access to his own records. the Police say they were with the girl when she printed her side of it - so if he disputed it he could have produced his own version. He says the Police had his PC and could have looked up his archive. But we don't know if they were asked to.A lot of weight was placed on the presumably accurate facebook record yet when he disputed that he was not believed
Where's the taking into account reasonable doubt
Mojooo said:
Lets say that when the Police produced the girls side, the suspect said well no that is not the full conversation he could have asked them to contact Facebook to get the original text but Facebook generally won't help UK law enforcement without very expensive/protected court orders obtained in the USA.
For there to reasonable doubt I suspect you need something more than 'it wasn't me' or 'the records ain't right' - the evidence they had would have looked strong in the absence of his own records. I suspect what also did it for him was that he was also accused of another rape and that probably affected the jury a little even though he was found not guilty.
I think you've got that completely ass-backwards. The complainant produced "evidence" from their computer, which they can manipulate. For there to reasonable doubt I suspect you need something more than 'it wasn't me' or 'the records ain't right' - the evidence they had would have looked strong in the absence of his own records. I suspect what also did it for him was that he was also accused of another rape and that probably affected the jury a little even though he was found not guilty.
Is that the standard we're putting people in jail for now? Manipulable half-stories? Whatever happened to All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer
The sin of omission is bad enough. When committed with impunity it becomes the norm and the sin of commission is not far behind. It's a very small step from a requirement to produce a result from all the evidence to one of selective evidence. Some of the police seem to have become politicised. To satisfy senior officers' career plans?
Thorodin said:
The sin of omission is bad enough. When committed with impunity it becomes the norm and the sin of commission is not far behind. It's a very small step from a requirement to produce a result from all the evidence to one of selective evidence. Some of the police seem to have become politicised. To satisfy senior officers' career plans?
Yes, quite probably. All the more reason for an unbiased review - NOT by the police - of ALL the evidence prior to charges being brought - perhaps limited to more serious cases. When I suggested this before, the response was "it'll be too expensive". Would it, though? Surely you'd avoid the cost of trials that should never happen, you'd save money because the police would have one fewer job to do, and you'd save money by employing experts (in, for example, technology and social media) instead of police officers.Alternatively, think of it as an investment in justice rather than an added cost.
milkround said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Daily Mail praised the defence Counsel in the Liam Allen case but ruined it by referring to her as a "female barrister". The correct term for a female barrister is "barrister".
Assuming you are a dude. Would you mind being referred to as a "male barrister"? If not why are you looking for a problem here? I used to date a midwife. She told me about her colleague which happened to be male. Customers/patients often pointed out the gender of this person as it was unusual. There were no special campaigns or appeals to get more male midwives - but then people didn't go around looking to make a point out of it either.
Would a female in law be such an unusual event worthy of comment due to it rarity? No.
There are fewer black barristers than female ones, and therefore more 'unusual'.
Would anyone report "the black barrister"?
No, because it's wholly irrelevant.
amusingduck said:
I think you've got that completely ass-backwards. The complainant produced "evidence" from their computer, which they can manipulate.
Is that the standard we're putting people in jail for now? Manipulable half-stories? Whatever happened to All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer
You are ignoring the fact that in a lot if not most criminal cases there is always an element of prove your innocence - that is why you have an interview so the suspect can put their side of the story in. The suspect in this case had his chance to do that.Is that the standard we're putting people in jail for now? Manipulable half-stories? Whatever happened to All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer
The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt but this is only after the the defendant has had an opportunity to respond and essentially prove their innocence.
The issue here is a slightly different/wider one of how far the authorities should/could go to prove/disprove conflicting evidence exists.
Mojooo said:
You are ignoring the fact that in a lot if not most criminal cases there is always an element of prove your innocence - that is why you have an interview so the suspect can put their side of the story in. The suspect in this case had his chance to do that.
The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt but this is only after the the defendant has had an opportunity to respond and essentially prove their innocence.
The issue here is a slightly different/wider one of how far the authorities should/could go to prove/disprove conflicting evidence exists.
The issue here is surely the authorities, in this case the investigating police, had the evidence at their disposal and a basic routine of examination of it either was or was not followed to establish 'the whole truth'. If that routine was not followed the police were negligent in their investigation and therefore should be held culpable in a miscarriage of justice and if it was followed they were prejudiced in the investigation. The focus here should not be on the CPS as they were presumably unaware of the mitigation. Another reason for a totally independent examination of all evidence following a charge and before prosecution. The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt but this is only after the the defendant has had an opportunity to respond and essentially prove their innocence.
The issue here is a slightly different/wider one of how far the authorities should/could go to prove/disprove conflicting evidence exists.
As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 2nd January 11:00
Thorodin said:
The issue here is surely the authorities, in this case the investigating police, had the evidence at their disposal and a basic routine of examination of it either was or was not followed to establish 'the whole truth'. If that routine was not followed the police were negligent in their investigation and therefore should be held culpable in a miscarriage of justice and if it was followed they were prejudiced in the investigation. The focus here should not be on the CPS as they were presumably unaware of the mitigation. Another reason for a totally independent examination of all evidence following a charge and before prosecution.
As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
They didn’t even have to go looking for it. The police had apparently seized his technology (thus making it hard for him to prove the woman was conspiring to pervert the course of justice). They either looked and decided they didn’t like the way it looked which makes the police co-conspirators, or they didn’t bother, which is, at the very least, gross negligence. As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 2nd January 11:00
Almost identical to the case of the poor Mr Allam.
If there are no prosecutions of the lying complainants in some of these cases it will be a disgrace. Hopefully the victims will consider civil cases for damages.
richie99 said:
Thorodin said:
The issue here is surely the authorities, in this case the investigating police, had the evidence at their disposal and a basic routine of examination of it either was or was not followed to establish 'the whole truth'. If that routine was not followed the police were negligent in their investigation and therefore should be held culpable in a miscarriage of justice and if it was followed they were prejudiced in the investigation. The focus here should not be on the CPS as they were presumably unaware of the mitigation. Another reason for a totally independent examination of all evidence following a charge and before prosecution.
As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
They didn’t even have to go looking for it. The police had apparently seized his technology (thus making it hard for him to prove the woman was conspiring to pervert the course of justice). They either looked and decided they didn’t like the way it looked which makes the police co-conspirators, or they didn’t bother, which is, at the very least, gross negligence. As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 2nd January 11:00
Almost identical to the case of the poor Mr Allam.
saaby93 said:
n these cases why hasnt the presiding judge realised there are big holes and thrown out the case
Perhaps because he/she was categorically assured that there was no admissible evidence to the contrary. In the latest case, it was only when the defending barrister had had enough of the nonsense from the cops (there is no evidence, well there is but it isn’t admissible and would have no bearing on the case, it’s very personal in nature, I didn’t even look at it) and asked the court to order its release that the case was thrown out. The judges might even have been swayed by the sworn testimony of the complainants.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff