The 17-year-old boy was found not guilty after the emergence of thousands of social media messages proving his innocence that police officers had failed to uncover.
He was expelled from his school in Leicestershire in 2016 following his arrest at the age of 15, according to The Times.C'mon, seriously, who really thinks the police 'missed' any of this?
Do they really think 'Look, we're incompetent, OK?' is going to go down better for them than 'Look, we're under orders to get rape convictions no matter what.'..?
A spokesman for the CPS said: "We have a duty to keep cases under continual review.
"In March 2017, as part of the charging decision, the CPS requested that police investigated social media interactions, but were informed that no messages existed.
"As a result of new material made available to the CPS in November 2017, further reviews of the case were undertaken."You don't tell someone 'no messages exist' if you haven't looked, and realised they do and they blow your case out of the water, or you'd be found later on to be lying liars. Which is just what's now happened.
This stinks. Heads should roll.
Critics say DPP Mrs Saunders has still not got a grip on the problem, after she declared that police did not always have to look for evidence on social media or mobile phones.
'We don't ordinarily trawl through people's lives,' she said. 'If people have known each other for a day, you might look at the texts between each other on that day or perhaps a day after.
'But you wouldn't and couldn't, without a huge amount of resources, completely download a phone and trawl through it all.'Does this barmy old bag not understand how social media works, then? The stuff is rarely hidden! It doesn't take a Herculean effort.
It's a nice evasion by dear old Alison though. The issue isn't that exculpatory evidence is being missed, it's that they're submitting court documents saying it doesn't exist. No amount of Tori Cutz can make someone submit a bogus document to the court.
ReplyDeleteOne of the commentators under the Daily BrexSShiteur said something interesting,I thought: "Often the suspects won¿t give the police their phone passwords meaning the investigators cannot uncover these messages. However, the suspect is more likely to let his defence see the messages which is how these messages get found. Hence why no officers are facing misconduct hearings."
ReplyDeleteMight that be a partial explanation because the police seem perfectly social meeja literate when it comes to poofy panda cars and Grenwail ?
They 'missed' this evidence because they didn't want to find it. The truth of the matter is that the filth are all as bent as nine-bob notes and their only aim is prosecution, regardless of innocence or guilt.
ReplyDeleteThe only good police are dead police.
The "BOB", as you labelled her, will be replaced soon, unfortunately with another politically-motivated, equally-useless appointee.
ReplyDeleteBut this DPP, definitely "not fit for purpose", has continued undermining Justice and should go now.
Have a quick read of this if you can:https://encroaching.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/disclosure-and-digital-evidence/
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that all parts of the CJS have been warning of this problem for some time now. I don't think anyone anticipated when the law regarding disclosure came into effect how much smart phones would come to take over and run all our lives and also the sheer amount of data that would be generated. As with all things in life you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay for a CJS then don't feign surprise when things don't work.
Unfortunately policing will continue to be aa highly labour intensive job, take reviewing CCTV for example. One officer reported that he had 42 days worth of CCTV to be reviewed from two cameras. The CPS required this to be viewed in real time, you may be able to grasp the problem with this. The problems are real and will continue.
Retired
I have been following these stories with great interest and it's the talk of the station. I don't think you armchair experts know how much work is involved in downloading and reading every message a suspect/victim has ever sent.
ReplyDeleteI have massive sympathy for innocent men charged wrongly. There is an agenda in the police of believing the (female) victim instead of looking at the case in a neutral way. I have been on the receiving end of several malicious allegations made by my ex-wife before you all shout that I don't know what it's like. Because I do.
The second comment?? Replace police with "black man" or "gay man" etc and see if it gets published.
Jaded
'The only good police are dead police'. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, anon. The 'work' of some police is, or has been, so evil as to prevail and continue to harm long after their demise.
ReplyDeleteMTG
The nutter is back. Hooray. Tin-foil salesman all over Yorkshire are expecting a rush on.
ReplyDeleteJaded
“Do they really think 'Look, we're incompetent, OK?' is going to go down better for them”
ReplyDeleteI've noticed this seems to be a very common government-sector excuse ever since Robin Cook screwed up in Sierra Leone and blamed it on his departmental civil servants (saying he didn't know what they were up to, thus admitting that he wasn't doing his job). It's probably a lot older, but I've come to think of it as “the Cook defence”. Once you've noticed it, you start to see it everywhere.
@Jaded,
ReplyDeleteFunny how FBI can review >30,000 Clinton emails in a day or two; how first chaps lawyer reviewed iirc 40,000 msgs in 6 hours to exonerate her client, but you UK Plod spends months and say "nothing to see here, move along".
Suggests you don't want to do it, man is presumed guilty - end off.
Search msgs for eg Sex, Rape, Love, Name, Shag, Fun, Enjoy, Good... use the tool that is the computer. After all, you like it when it helps you: PNC, ANPR DB etc.
Excuse dismissed, do your job properly.
The DPP should be fired. More likely, she'll leave with a nice fat pension and continue to have a happy life, completely without any regard towards what utter crap she has caused to many. Don't you just love it? Oh, for politicians with a backbone...
ReplyDelete:o)
I’m not sure why the police do not routinely download phone, tablet, PC data from every suspect in every crime then pass full copies on to the defence solicitors as unused material. The solicitors would then be able to review it all themselves at £150 per hour. Everyone’s a winner!
ReplyDeletePCar at 22.32 'Funny how FBI can review >30,000 Clinton emails in a day or two; how first chaps lawyer reviewed iirc 40,000 msgs in 6 hours to exonerate her client, but you UK Plod spends months and say "nothing to see here, move along".'
ReplyDeleteI suggest it may not be beyond the realms of possibility that the FBI might, just might, have more resources that the local CID. This is also what happens when resources are cut and demand rises. Training has been reduced and uniform PC's are now dealing with jobs that an experienced DS/Dc would have dealt with a few years ago.
Still, have fun. I'm glad I left. It's going to be a complete shitstorm in the coming months, all largely created by career politicians who will ensure that the blame will sit anywhere but with them.
Retired
"I’m not sure why the police do not routinely download phone, tablet, PC data from every suspect in every crime then pass full copies on to the defence solicitors as unused material."
ReplyDeleteThats easy, they know there is every possibility there is evidence in that data that clears the suspect, but can't be arsed/haven't got the 'resources' (take your pick) to find out themselves. So they withhold that data from the defence (because they might actually find evidence that clears the defendant) and pretend it doesn't exist, or lie and say they've reviewed it and there's nothing of relevance there when they haven't.
Why people are not going to jail for this I don't know.
Why doesn't the "innocent" defendant tell his ambulance chaser that there is material on his phone that clears him? Just a thought. Then the AC can request it well before the trial instead of the case getting to court. A cynic might suggest that if it actually gets to court the payout is bigger.
ReplyDeleteJaded.
@Retired, 6 February 2018 at 09:41
ReplyDeletePcar wrote first chap's lawyer reviewed iirc 40,000 msgs in 6 hours to exonerate her client
I suggest it may not be beyond the realms of possibility that the FBI might, just might, have more resources that the local CID. This is also what happens when resources are cut and demand rises. Training has been reduced and uniform PC's are now dealing with jobs that an experienced DS/Dc would have dealt with a few years ago
Hmm, so a local CID is unable to do in months/years what one female solicitor does in six hours after a full day's work?
Lack of resources, training (to do a google type search - ROFL) etc is an excuse to hide the problem.
Remember this?
First case in Dec 17, police stated "all evidence reviewed, nothing relevant, too personal to disclose"
You, Jaded, Left ignore/forget what has been disclosed and continue with the "cuts" excuse even though repeatedly proved a lie.
Try a new broken record, even better: Do Your Job.
@ Pcar. It's not so much the lack of material between 'educatid' Jaded's ears, rather than its quality, which renders attempts to solicit thoughtful responses, futile.
ReplyDeleteMTG
Pcar . I've never blamed cuts. Don't go all Melvin on me and repeat a lie until it becomes the truth.
ReplyDeleteAs for "do your job". Is that a generic you're a policeman so you are all at fault even if you don't deal with rapes? Or specific to me?
Jaded.
PS what's your job? Pray tell so I can make sweeping generalisations. You probably won't answer this. Same as the huddersfield half wit.
@ WC Jaded:
ReplyDeleteMost 'educatid' folk are bilingual, dear. You are still struggling with your Mother tongue and your next arrest by Essex police will hopefully include overnight accommodation for abuse of English grammar and punctuation crimes.
MTG
@Jaded
ReplyDelete" I've never blamed cuts"
Some diversion there, you may not have. However, you & retired do blame "lack of resources" which is tantamount to "give us more taxpayers money". Guilty. Case closed.
"what's your job?...You probably won't answer this..."
Self-employed Business and IT Consultant & VAR, beholden to no one.
Pcar. MBA, BSc, DipM (CIM)
:p
@MTG
ReplyDelete"Most 'educatid' folk are bilingual"
Call you out on that.
My mother (Ret. teacher), brother MBA BA DipM, nor I are. Genetic?
@ Pcar
ReplyDeleteThe clearest reflection of education is manifest in written communications; the latter also providing excellent clues as to our genetic makeup, personality and social standing. I'm taking a wild guess that you have an 'O' level in woodwork and an undeclared first aiders certificate.
MTG
Melvin, I'm glad to see it's not just me you sneer at. Your air of superiority knows no bounds.
ReplyDeleteJaded
I've been a witness to, and a victim of, a number of crimes locally (Cumbria) and in every case the police respond to a 999 call.
ReplyDeleteFair enough except they then automatically assume whoever made that (first) call is the 'designated victim' and (and here's the kicker) 'only gather evidence which supports that (pre)judgement'!
Multiple times I have been required to find out who the defence solicitor is, and approach them independently as an unbiased witness because the police adamantly 'refuse' to take a statement.
I challenged the officers, their sergeants, inspectors and even the Chief Constable and they confirmed (in writing) that this is “standard policy for Cumbria Constabulary” and nationally.
The law? Justice? Not round here anymore.
And yes, the local criminal set are aware and guess what they do after stealing, assaulting, etc. someone? Yep, they dial 999 … predictably.
So it's nothing unusual happening here. Female makes a call, an allegation, gets a crime number and the police then (as policy) only collect evidence that supports that version of events.
What? You thought they investigated, gathered all the evidence and only then decided who the criminals were? Nah, that's much too much effort, much easier to charge whoever didn't call them first and ignore anything which might prove 'contradictory'.
So it's not really that they're trying to inflate the rape conviction figures, it's just they're lazy, incompetent idiots is all.
@ WC Jaded
ReplyDeleteThat low threshold of tolerance to sneering is quite understandable. Suspended on full pay again and yet another misconduct hearing scheduled; sneered at by the District Judge as he hands you a fresh restraining order; arrested by your own force (again) and fresh out of the cells with nothing much to do. Why don't you try passing the time with a good crossword...oh, wait...don't forget to firstly tune into YouTube for those essential spelling lessons.
MTG
to firstly tune
ReplyDeleteThe clearest reflection of education is manifest in written communications; the latter also providing excellent clues as to our genetic makeup, personality and social standing
Mote & beam MTG, mote and beam.
I know it's compulsive reading for some but stay clear of the Bible, Jack. Folk will think you mad for quoting it and it's full of misunderstandings...like when the Great Architect provided Moses with two tablets to be taken orally.
DeleteOh...you thought 'to firstly tune' was erroneous! Another botched execution then, old chap.
DeleteMTG
ReplyDeleteOh...you thought 'to firstly tune' was erroneous! Another botched execution then, old chap.
Not so much 'erroneous' (although like many I was raised to believe to be an unpardonable grammar sin) as the fact you used it saying quite a bit about you-hence my repeating your quote. I've read enough of your comments over the years to know you can handle yourself in English and how she is written.
@MTG, 8 February 2018 at 08:29
ReplyDelete"'O' level in woodwork and an undeclared first aiders certificate"
Diversion tactic in thread again - topic is Withholding Evidence
However, I will indulge you.
LOL, I was useless in woodwork (& art) class and eschew meaningless certificates. However, I did do pre-med in sixth form as entry enhancer to med school - passed all, but had rethink following A&E visit.
Still good on med & MrsPcar is a dentist.
@Jaded etc
ReplyDeleteNo reply to blaming "lack of resources" aka cuts?
Maybe embarrassed one female solicitor uncovered in six hours - after day's work & children to bed - what plod claim they couldn't in over a year?
You would gain more respect by admitting police mistakes, bias, pressure for guilt from CPS/Gov't.
JuliaM ad portas.
ReplyDelete"No amount of Tori Cutz can make someone submit a bogus document to the court."
ReplyDeleteWell, quite! It's frightening that they can't seem to grasp that telling us they are corrupt is not a defence to the accusation of being incompetent.
"Might that be a partial explanation because the police seem perfectly social meeja literate when it comes to poofy panda cars and Grenwail ?"
The only messages hidden in that way would be private messages.
"But this DPP, definitely "not fit for purpose", has continued undermining Justice and should go now."
ReplyDeleteI fear we have woken up too late. The rot has spread too far.
"I don't think anyone anticipated when the law regarding disclosure came into effect how much smart phones would come to take over and run all our lives and also the sheer amount of data that would be generated."
That's a good point, but no matter what, you disclose what you have. Failure to do so, as DJ points out above, is not an option.
" I don't think you armchair experts know how much work is involved in downloading and reading every message a suspect/victim has ever sent."
I note you, too, haven't answered DJ's point.
"I've come to think of it as “the Cook defence”. Once you've noticed it, you start to see it everywhere."
Well, yes. There's sadly so much opportunity to use it!
"Funny how FBI can review >30,000 Clinton emails in a day or two..."
But not a nutter threatening to shoot up a school....
"’m not sure why the police do not routinely download phone, tablet, PC data from every suspect in every crime then pass full copies on to the defence solicitors as unused material. "
ReplyDeleteI'm sure 'lack of resources' will feature in the explanation!
"The law? Justice? Not round here anymore."
That's utterly appalling! And yet people still wonder why the police are beginning to be regarded by even the law-abiding as at best an expensive folly, and at worst the enemy...