Another example of a conviction overturned when the police used edited version of a facebook conversation supplied by the FA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-blunder.html
The police say that the FA printed the conversation while supervised there she must have edited prior to supplying the misleading version to the police. If this is true then she is obviously guilty of perverting the course of justice and should be charged.
However I cannot understand how the defence didn't have the knowledge of how to access the falsely accused Facebook account to access the true message history.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-blunder.html
The police say that the FA printed the conversation while supervised there she must have edited prior to supplying the misleading version to the police. If this is true then she is obviously guilty of perverting the course of justice and should be charged.
However I cannot understand how the defence didn't have the knowledge of how to access the falsely accused Facebook account to access the true message history.
Comment