A few questions..

[Rights Fighter]

It is entirely possible that the CPS/police expert has found entirely innocuous images but decided that they were indecent or illegal.

A case I was involved with three or four years back, the "illegal" images included a woman walking a dog in a park and the def's guitar leaning against a lampstand. I kid you not. It was no great surprise when the CPS miraculously decided that those charges would be dropped at trial.

I think it was hoped that it would be mentioned to the jury by the prosecution that "images" were found, leaving them to speculate.

Another guy (I mentioned on here a few weeks back) was a scout master. After he was accused the police trawled local scout groups and held meeting with parents as well as staff - they named him. They also told them all that there were images of concern, all of boys, on his computer, to engender disgust and hopefully bring forth more allegations - false or not - they really aren't bothered.

What they didn't say was that these were all of scouting events and as all scouts (at that time) were boys, and the images would be of "boys", working in the outdoors, around the campfire, cooking on the campfire etc etc.

Always a good idea to request the solicitor instructs a computer forensic defence expert, once the "suspect" has been charged, if the police claim that "images of concern" were found, and you know there won't be any.

[Wife]

My understanding is that it takes more than one Police person to "tamper" with evidence. Especially computer evidence. I understand it would take collusion between two or more Officers. Generally I would like to believe this is rare....

Police will however be selective regarding evidence, rearrange it, selectively emphasis, but absolute tampering?

I know I was on the same treadmill.

Kindest regards
Mr B

Thanks they have put a full statement together, that looks completely believable, including computer data.
The images are described in detail, but no one on the defence has seen these images.
This was carried out by a "police expert" and he has supplied the statement.
When the defence computer expert examined the hard drive, he did not find these images or the specific search terms, the CPS were going to use to, " find a disposition towards".
So these are the facts, two experts looked at the same hard drive and came out with different reports.
Adding to this mystery the trainee detective and officer in charge of the case, told my Husband's lawyer, in court, that one of the "police images" was of a four year old--which was completely false.
Our Lawyer passed this on to the prosecution and the prosecution barrister announced to the judge, that there was no image of a four year old on the computer report, "as described by the officer".
So I do not think this is the police tampering directly with the computer, as do not think they have the skills to do that.
But I do believe that they simply added these images to the written report-----with the naïve belief that no one would look at the hard drive and question their report.
But I am not surprised if this is a rare occurrence---or if more defence computer experts were employed maybe it wouldn't be so rare?
Kind regards wife

[Wife]

It is entirely possible that the CPS/police expert has found entirely innocuous images but decided that they were indecent or illegal.

A case I was involved with three or four years back, the "illegal" images included a woman walking a dog in a park and the def's guitar leaning against a lampstand. I kid you not. It was no great surprise when the CPS miraculously decided that those charges would be dropped at trial.

I think it was hoped that it would be mentioned to the jury by the prosecution that "images" were found, leaving them to speculate.

Another guy (I mentioned on here a few weeks back) was a scout master. After he was accused the police trawled local scout groups and held meeting with parents as well as staff - they named him. They also told them all that there were images of concern, all of boys, on his computer, to engender disgust and hopefully bring forth more allegations - false or not - they really aren't bothered.

What they didn't say was that these were all of scouting events and as all scouts (at that time) were boys, and the images would be of "boys", working in the outdoors, around the campfire, cooking on the campfire etc etc.

Always a good idea to request the solicitor instructs a computer forensic defence expert, once the "suspect" has been charged, if the police claim that "images of concern" were found, and you know there won't be any.

Thanks, in this case they were very imaginative and graphically described three suitable images, which would match the other charges and a few choice search terms to compliment the images and the charges.
My Husband's trial was adjourned after the defence expert's findings were revealed and the CPS went into a complete melt down.
So yes I would strongly recommend a computer expert is hired by the defence, when any computer charges are made.
The police and the CPS need to be more restricted and less able to act corruptly.
Kind regards Wife

[Rights Fighter]

T.......................
But I do believe that they simply added these images to the written report-----with the naïve belief that no one would look at the hard drive and question their report.

But I am not surprised if this is a rare occurrence---or if more defence computer experts were employed maybe it wouldn't be so rare?
Kind regards wife

As I said in my post above (#16)

A case I was involved with three or four years back, the "illegal" images included a woman walking a dog in a park and the def's guitar leaning against a lampstand. I kid you not. It was no great surprise when the CPS miraculously decided that those charges would be dropped at trial.

I really do not believe that these incidents are at all rare. I think the police add the comments in the hope that CPS will believe them and charge the accused.