Friday, 16 March 2012


A police investigation into the death of Bournemouth schoolboy Kyle Rees has concluded that he died as a result of a “tragic accident involving no criminality”.
This is the teenager hit on the head by a cricket ball. And he’s not he only ‘victim’ of what now turns out to have been an accident:
Initially, another 16-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter but he has now been released without charge and is “receiving support”.
The initial reports about a ‘brawl’ are now presumed false, which prompts a fair bit of comment:
uvox44 says...

hope the "witness" that
reported seeing a mass brawl, that was subsequently reported on national news, is proud of dragging the reputation of the school through the mud, apart from wasting police time..
And that’s not the only troubling aspect:
muscliffman says...

How sad.

It is concerning that the national media hyped up a false story about a mass brawl.

Equally bewildering was the 'arrest' of another lad at the time. Why did the Police need to do this at such an early stage, he could have just helped them with their enquiries - as we used to say.

Is it politically motivated box ticking? I ask this as it seems to be
becoming rather a media attractive habit in these well publicised and usually very tragic cases.
It does indeed…


blueknight said...

Guessing that post 'Stephen Lawrence' advice to Police is that an early arrest is the best way to secure uncontaminated samples - hair, fibres, blood specks etc.

Anonymouslemming said...

But if they don't arrest him, they don't get the free juicy DNA and fingerprints.

Since the rewards to the police for making an arrest are so high, and the risks so low, a better question might be "Why didn't they arrest the victim too !?"

Even if you fight to get your arrest expunged, it's still hell trying to get your DNA and prints removed.

JuliaM said...

I suspect you're right (but also, it ensures that he has access to legal advice so there's an element of protection for him too).

But it's also the thing that stirs up a lot of anti-police feeling, and helps goons like Winsor to come up with dodgy reports...

Anonymous said...

Arrest has to be justified, and in the circumstances...easily so. What if he were not arrested and then it came to light he had made threats to the deceased? Hindsight is a gift we are all blessed with.

Arrest is not a conviction. When i have arrested people in the past, i try to explain that it is down to an allegation against them. I know a lot of people who i have arrested are innocent, but if i didn't arrest them then people would be saying i was neglecting my duty and failing to investigate.

One of the comments in that newspaper article states as much by a comment along the lines of 'shame the police aren't quick enough to arrest in real crime'. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Parents and family have lost someone in a tragic manner. It has to be investigated properly. It has been and the lad cleared of wrong-doing. As i said before, if something came out later that he had made threats against the deceased, how many of you would be bemoaning the useless old bill for failing to investigate the death of a child?

Oh and DNA and fingerprints.....yes, that is what it is all about. I live and breathe for just the small chance of taking someones DNA. Sorry, i shouldn't be sarcastic, but really. Wherever possible i interview people on a voluntary basis just to avoid all that palava. Still, huess that don't fit in with your belief system so i must be wrong.

Anonymous said...

That user uvox44 is a well known troll on the daily Echo website..