Putney Bridge Jogger Investigation
Discussion
DCI Plod has decided to close the investigation into the guy who pushed a woman in front of a bus.
In London, you are caught on CCTV 300 times a day. And yet this guy (who was on the same bridge, twice in 15 minutes) has eluded capture for 9 months.
It has to be a cover up, surely?? I reckon he is a high ranking official who has managed to ensure this stays hush hush...
In London, you are caught on CCTV 300 times a day. And yet this guy (who was on the same bridge, twice in 15 minutes) has eluded capture for 9 months.
It has to be a cover up, surely?? I reckon he is a high ranking official who has managed to ensure this stays hush hush...
In the past 6-7 months I've put countless CCTV images out for circulation to get named suspects to progress an investigation. I've literally only had one arrest result from those countless CCTV circulations. Even then it was only because it was HD footage, multiple angles clearly showing his face and distinctive tattoos, and he was partially known to other cops. Even then nobody was willing to provide an ID statement as they weren't 100%, so it literally boiled down to me locating the male whose name was suggested and ID'ing him from his tattoos.
So if nobody has come forward with a positive ID that has any evidence going for it, what else are police meant to do?
So if nobody has come forward with a positive ID that has any evidence going for it, what else are police meant to do?
Chalkius said:
In the past 6-7 months I've put countless CCTV images out for circulation to get named suspects to progress an investigation. I've literally only had one arrest result from those countless CCTV circulations. Even then it was only because it was HD footage, multiple angles clearly showing his face and distinctive tattoos, and he was partially known to other cops. Even then nobody was willing to provide an ID statement as they weren't 100%, so it literally boiled down to me locating the male whose name was suggested and ID'ing him from his tattoos.
So if nobody has come forward with a positive ID that has any evidence going for it, what else are police meant to do?
So if you get caught as a result of being seen on CCTV, all you have to do is flatly deny it was you and you'll get off?So if nobody has come forward with a positive ID that has any evidence going for it, what else are police meant to do?
vonhosen said:
It's better than nowt because it will lead to identification in some cases, which is better than in no cases.
It is a cost benefit issue though is it not? How many crimes have been solved by CCTV? I mean, I am mindful of the times I've been in the mags/Crown and had the "benefit" of CCTV including on a post office robbery. No one could see a damn thing. Yet how much money is spent on them?Jasandjules said:
vonhosen said:
It's better than nowt because it will lead to identification in some cases, which is better than in no cases.
It is a cost benefit issue though is it not? How many crimes have been solved by CCTV? I mean, I am mindful of the times I've been in the mags/Crown and had the "benefit" of CCTV including on a post office robbery. No one could see a damn thing. Yet how much money is spent on them?Jasandjules said:
Sounds like CCTV isn't worth having and spending money on then.
You haven't read the reports, you haven't seen the stats.I was in charge of CCTV in Brighton just after installation. In the first few weeks the operators produced an 'outtakes' video for the enlightenment of the prejudiced. The tape wore within 18 mnths because it was used so much. I asked my guys to note any new stuff and produce another and I was told that they'd been trying that for nearly half a year and had very little.
It transformed town centre policing in the city. It reduced certain crimes significantly. We had problem with robberies from foreign students - bad for business - and my guys got a couple of dozen of the main offenders within three weeks.
I was later identification officer. CCTV is of little use as identification in court cases. It's great when a 'face' does something and an officer can pick him out, but as a means of proving his/her identity it has certain deficiencies. Just as well it wasn't brought it for that purpose, nor was it promised to be effective in such matters.
Ir revolutionised resourcing. When someone suggested there was a 'massive fight' in West Street, CCTV could give an accurate estimate of how many units should attend.
CCTV did more than what it said on the tin but didn't do what it said it couldn't do.
Sheepshanks said:
Chalkius said:
In the past 6-7 months I've put countless CCTV images out for circulation to get named suspects to progress an investigation. I've literally only had one arrest result from those countless CCTV circulations. Even then it was only because it was HD footage, multiple angles clearly showing his face and distinctive tattoos, and he was partially known to other cops. Even then nobody was willing to provide an ID statement as they weren't 100%, so it literally boiled down to me locating the male whose name was suggested and ID'ing him from his tattoos.
So if nobody has come forward with a positive ID that has any evidence going for it, what else are police meant to do?
So if you get caught as a result of being seen on CCTV, all you have to do is flatly deny it was you and you'll get off?So if nobody has come forward with a positive ID that has any evidence going for it, what else are police meant to do?
Sheepshanks said:
So if you get caught as a result of being seen on CCTV, all you have to do is flatly deny it was you and you'll get off?
Not really. You can certainly say it's not you, but it all depends on the rest of the evidence against you. If you've been placed in that area by someone who has given a statement, were arrested wearing the same clothes or those clothes were found in searches after arrest, the stolen goods were found in your possession or somewhere you'd have access to, you'd have to account for that.If you've been arrested/VA'd because of CCTV and it's not the best footage, and the rest of the evidence isn't great, then you might get away with it if you don't say anything stupid in interview.
If you're simply not known to police and nobody comes forward to name you, then you'll probably get away with it. Once you actually get caught then you're known, and you'll find you'll be getting paid more attention in the future and that you can't away away with it so easily as there's a bigger chance that when the images are circulated the cops that dealt with you last time can name you.
Other people might have more luck with CCTV than me. Though the one that hit, hit big as it not only shows clearly who he is, it shows that the assault he committed was very nasty and utterly unprovoked, and does so from several angles. Without it we'd not have a case as the victim doesn't know the suspect at all. So in that case, he can deny it all he likes (he didn't even no comment, he sat in total silence), the CCTV will nail him.
Driving Miss Daisy said:
Thing why say it's shelved? Surely this a good day for bullying pr*ck.
I'd rather they just let go quietly and let it nag at him that he could get caught at any time.
He deserves to worry.
It was a case that got public interest, so they essentially had no choice, they'd have been asked about it at some point anyway, and if they said 'Oh, we closed that investigation back in June', they'd get flack for trying to be secretive. I'd rather they just let go quietly and let it nag at him that he could get caught at any time.
He deserves to worry.
Any crime once all reasonable avenues are pursued, if no useable leads are found, will be closed pending further investigation. It's standard practice.
If new information comes to light about who it was then then they can simply reopen it.
I forecast (correctly, smug face on) there would be no arrest on the other thread.
To me it was obvious they knew one another, probably estranged partners, she tried to trip him he retaliated.
No woman came forward to make a complaint so what could the cops go on?
Move on, nothing to see.
To me it was obvious they knew one another, probably estranged partners, she tried to trip him he retaliated.
No woman came forward to make a complaint so what could the cops go on?
Move on, nothing to see.
Active CCTV is a lot better i.e. being controlled. Most CCTV is of poor quality.
There's nothing unusual about a crime being undetected. Sometimes CCTV of a sufficient quality can't be found / an ID isn't forthcoming.
I assume the OP is messing around (although hard to tell with some of the posts / people on this site), but you'd probably not release any CCTV if you were going to do a 'cover-up'.
There's nothing unusual about a crime being undetected. Sometimes CCTV of a sufficient quality can't be found / an ID isn't forthcoming.
I assume the OP is messing around (although hard to tell with some of the posts / people on this site), but you'd probably not release any CCTV if you were going to do a 'cover-up'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff