Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
king annoys me.rscott said:
Looks to me like someone in the CPS was doing their job properly - they requested the text messages and promptly discontinued the case once they'd received and reviewed them.
looking at the timeline i don't think your use of the word "promptly" is appropriate in this case. why weren't they looked at before he ended up in the slammer ?in cases like this i would like to see investigation into the complainant to see if there is any malice intended. if so it should open them up to prosecution or financial penalty at the very least. false accusations have the same effect as malicious slander yet too often those doing the accusation seem to get a free ride after their claims are shown to be without foundation.
this bloke lost his business and home, not so easy to forgive and forget in that situation and his view of the system and those running it will be heavily tainted for good.
wc98 said:
looking at the timeline i don't think your use of the word "promptly" is appropriate in this case. why weren't they looked at before he ended up in the slammer ?
No 
The question is why did he end up in the slammer in the first place
Think of an exact case except there are no innocence proving text messages
How likely is what was presented going to mean permanent residence in the slammer?
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 26th May 10:18
saaby93 said:
No
The question is why did he end up in the slammer in the first place
Think of an exact case except there are no innocence proving text messages
How likely is what was presented going to mean permanent residence in the slammer?
Reading the story it seems that the entire case (and him being remanded in custody) did not rest on the texts as he was charged with arson/harassment and then remanded in custody, later charged with rape, CPS request phone messages at this point, receive phone messages ‘relevant to the rape matter’ then 5 days later all charges are dropped.The question is why did he end up in the slammer in the first place
Think of an exact case except there are no innocence proving text messages
How likely is what was presented going to mean permanent residence in the slammer?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 26th May 10:18
So he had already been in custody for 5 months before he was charged with rape, for which the text messages were relevant.
cookie118 said:
Reading the story it seems that the entire case (and him being remanded in custody) did not rest on the texts as he was charged with arson/harassment and then remanded in custody, later charged with rape, CPS request phone messages at this point, receive phone messages ‘relevant to the rape matter’ then 5 days later all charges are dropped.
Didnt know that but how come the whole lot was dropped just because of a few texts?It either stacks up or it doesnt, irrespective of a few texts
saaby93 said:
cookie118 said:
Reading the story it seems that the entire case (and him being remanded in custody) did not rest on the texts as he was charged with arson/harassment and then remanded in custody, later charged with rape, CPS request phone messages at this point, receive phone messages ‘relevant to the rape matter’ then 5 days later all charges are dropped.
Didnt know that but how come the whole lot was dropped just because of a few texts?It either stacks up or it doesnt, irrespective of a few texts
Dr Jekyll said:
saaby93 said:
cookie118 said:
Reading the story it seems that the entire case (and him being remanded in custody) did not rest on the texts as he was charged with arson/harassment and then remanded in custody, later charged with rape, CPS request phone messages at this point, receive phone messages ‘relevant to the rape matter’ then 5 days later all charges are dropped.
Didnt know that but how come the whole lot was dropped just because of a few texts?It either stacks up or it doesnt, irrespective of a few texts
You have a pile of evidence which doesn't quite stack up, and you get a few texts which add to the case to make it proceed
You cant have a pile of evidence that does stack up and then find a few texts to say it doesnt
There shouldnt be enough in the stack to make it certain with or without the texts
The threshold is wrong somewhere
saaby93 said:
cookie118 said:
Reading the story it seems that the entire case (and him being remanded in custody) did not rest on the texts as he was charged with arson/harassment and then remanded in custody, later charged with rape, CPS request phone messages at this point, receive phone messages ‘relevant to the rape matter’ then 5 days later all charges are dropped.
Didnt know that but how come the whole lot was dropped just because of a few texts?It either stacks up or it doesnt, irrespective of a few texts
saaby93 said:
Surely it's the oather way about
You have a pile of evidence which doesn't quite stack up, and you get a few texts which add to the case to make it proceed
You cant have a pile of evidence that does stack up and then find a few texts to say it doesnt
There shouldnt be enough in the stack to make it certain with or without the texts
The threshold is wrong somewhere
The additional texts might alter the context of what's already in the stack.You have a pile of evidence which doesn't quite stack up, and you get a few texts which add to the case to make it proceed
You cant have a pile of evidence that does stack up and then find a few texts to say it doesnt
There shouldnt be enough in the stack to make it certain with or without the texts
The threshold is wrong somewhere
There was a recent case where part of the evidence was a message from the defendant to the complainant shortly after the alleged assault saying 'sorry'. Another message was then found showing that the 'sorry' was a reply to another message dated after the alleged assault saying 'why are you ignoring me?'.
The jury decision as to whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt is ultimately a judgement call and the CPS estimate as to how likely the jury is to convict it is a second level judgement call. It's not as if there is some scientific proof involved.
'why did it take so long?' you ask.
If you've ever seen the amount of A4 sheets of information a single phone produces you might start to understand. It's like a volume of encyclopedia Britannica. Each Officer can be dealing with around 30 investigations and is expected to go through every piece of information for disclosure. It's an impossible task, more so now all the support departments have been axed due to budget cuts.
If you've ever seen the amount of A4 sheets of information a single phone produces you might start to understand. It's like a volume of encyclopedia Britannica. Each Officer can be dealing with around 30 investigations and is expected to go through every piece of information for disclosure. It's an impossible task, more so now all the support departments have been axed due to budget cuts.
Elroy Blue said:
'why did it take so long?' you ask.
If you've ever seen the amount of A4 sheets of information a single phone produces you might start to understand. It's like a volume of encyclopedia Britannica. Each Officer can be dealing with around 30 investigations and is expected to go through every piece of information for disclosure. It's an impossible task, more so now all the support departments have been axed due to budget cuts.
But surely that doesn't give a reason for 'selectively ignoring' some evidence, as has been shown to have happened in some cases.If you've ever seen the amount of A4 sheets of information a single phone produces you might start to understand. It's like a volume of encyclopedia Britannica. Each Officer can be dealing with around 30 investigations and is expected to go through every piece of information for disclosure. It's an impossible task, more so now all the support departments have been axed due to budget cuts.
Maybe trained staff (as well as Police) can be used for looking through a lot of the data so all the relevant parts can be then examined more carefully? That may give its own problems of course.
Elroy Blue said:
'why did it take so long?' you ask.
If you've ever seen the amount of A4 sheets of information a single phone produces you might start to understand. It's like a volume of encyclopedia Britannica. Each Officer can be dealing with around 30 investigations and is expected to go through every piece of information for disclosure. It's an impossible task, more so now all the support departments have been axed due to budget cuts.
It's even worse if the send and receive are on separate pieces of paper and we saw how the meaning can change if a text is missed out of the sequenceIf you've ever seen the amount of A4 sheets of information a single phone produces you might start to understand. It's like a volume of encyclopedia Britannica. Each Officer can be dealing with around 30 investigations and is expected to go through every piece of information for disclosure. It's an impossible task, more so now all the support departments have been axed due to budget cuts.
What happens if theres a missing spoken conversation in between
Surely it's best to treat phone evidence as unreliable and also avoid taking one person's statement as gospel
otherwise that latest link can happen
Fastpedeller said:
But surely that doesn't give a reason for 'selectively ignoring' some evidence, as has been shown to have happened in some cases.
Maybe trained staff (as well as Police) can be used for looking through a lot of the data so all the relevant parts can be then examined more carefully? That may give its own problems of course.
Once upon a time we had 'trained staff'. The Government making 35% cuts to Police budgets means we don't have them any more. Maybe trained staff (as well as Police) can be used for looking through a lot of the data so all the relevant parts can be then examined more carefully? That may give its own problems of course.
Elroy Blue said:
Once upon a time we had 'trained staff'. The Government making 35% cuts to Police budgets means we don't have them any more.
TBF though I seem to recall police crying about needing more, more, more since way back when - crying wolf for so long has finally bitten them (and us in all honesty) on the arse.rscott said:
saaby93 said:
Surely it's best to treat phone evidence as unreliable and also avoid taking one person's statement as gospel
otherwise that latest link can happen
If they treated phone evidence as unreliable, then the latest case wouldn't have collapsed..otherwise that latest link can happen
What evidence did they have that stood up so well until they found a few texts?
We cant rely on people being saved by a few texts on a phone here and there
irocfan said:
TBF though I seem to recall police crying about needing more, more, more since way back when - crying wolf for so long has finally bitten them (and us in all honesty) on the arse.
You mean Theresa May accusing Police about 'crying wolf' on the effects of the cuts a few years ago. And everything that Police Officers said would happen, has. That crying wolf?The Criminal Justice system is in meltdown. But feel free to keep sticking your head in the sand.
Elroy Blue said:
irocfan said:
TBF though I seem to recall police crying about needing more, more, more since way back when - crying wolf for so long has finally bitten them (and us in all honesty) on the arse.
You mean Theresa May accusing Police about 'crying wolf' on the effects of the cuts a few years ago. And everything that Police Officers said would happen, has. That crying wolf?The Criminal Justice system is in meltdown. But feel free to keep sticking your head in the sand.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff