A few questions..

[sqounk]

Hi all. I have a few questions, if anyone can fill me in I'd be grateful;

Do the police always confiscate phones/electronic computer stuff if they seriously suspect someone of a SO (even if it's historical) or sometimes not bother?
Also, I've looked at some of the legislation and I have questions that I would like a specialist to look at re the 1956 act (I know which sections I want clarity on). I've asked one of those online solicitors some stuff but the answer was quite vague - and I don't want to bother the duty solicitor as I'm not sure how much forensic knowledge he has of the legislation and also he is massively busy and won't get paid as I am not charged. Anyone know of someone who really knows their stuff re that act who has go the time to answer an email (always best in email form with me cos I have time to really think about the question and I also forget phone conversations quickly!).

Cheers all

Sq

[Casehardened]

Phones are almost invariably looked at especially when the accuser is known to the accused as texts may corroborate (or disprove) the accusation.

Examining computers is a bit more variable but when the allegations relate to a minor, they are often checked so see if any underage material has been downloaded as, apart from being an offence in it's own right, this can give some weight to the accusation.

[hello88]

i think they pretty much always seize phones/computers/camera's ect as if you are prone to looking at indecent images then that would help the accusers side of things...

Personally i don't think you should be trying to look too much into legislations/laws ect at the moment but more trying to gather 'evidence' to help your part. Many suggest writing down a timeline, anything from that time might also help (from photo's of the house you lived at if it supposedly happened in there or something) even looking back through their facebook if possible.. gather and store but don't give to the police..

keep strong xx

[sqounk]

Hi - well, they didn't ask or take anything so maybe that's a good sign then. Or at least not a bad one. I've collated quite a bit of evidence so far and continue to; not sure it relates to the actual date and time etc. but it does highlight some of the issues surrounding the allegation. I started working on a 'defence statement' which if it does nothing else, makes me feel better. In it I am trying to map what happened, what could not have happened and other details some of which I've already told the police in response to their questions in the interview - maybe it's a document I could hand over to the solicitor or would I have the opportunity to read something like this in court if it came to that? Anyone know?

[Broken-hearted]

I would say it's something you would share with your solicitor for sure. I cannot answer whether it's something you could read out in court as we aren't that far down the line so have no experience.

As far as tech being "seized" a word that winds me up no end. We lost a laptop and phone inititially then another phone was taken, they were aware of other laptops, iPad at the time but did not take those or partners phone until some weeks after. Not sure how positive or negative it is for stuff not to be taken.

Hang on in there and as said by other posters gather everything you can and keep it safe, write down everything you remember.

[sqounk]

Thanks Broken Hearted. It was interesting watching the 4th episode of National Treasure where he was advised not to do a similar thing - the accused that is, for fear of digging his own grave. Yeah - I've got lots of notes and write down as much as I remember or that I think is relevant. Thank you for your support

[Broken-hearted]

I've still got the last one to watch it didn't seem to get good reviews on another group I'm in.

Keep us posted with how you are doing.

[Casehardened]

A further viewpoint on the matter of the police seizing technical equipment for forensic analysis, which I have just been made aware of, is that this won't be done unless the interview with the complainant indicates that evidence to support the allegation may be found on the database in the equipment or unless the offence was related to technology.

[Franticwithworry]

Our elecronics were taken before any interview took place. They even took items that obviously belong to someone else and were loaned to us. The complaint didn't relate to technology either. There was no logic to what they took and what was left.

[Wife]

Wife

They likee to take computers as they generaly only have
"word of mouth' evidence from complainents, which is not factual or forensic evidence---but computer evidence is.
The CPS like computer evidence too, as a, means for giving a reason for the defendent having a tendancy towards abusive behaviour.
I am familiar with the 1956 Act but you can also access it on line---its long but you can filter out the parts that are relevant.
If you can afford it please get a specialist lawyer who can give you the best advice.
I wish you well in your endeaver and hope justice shines on you

[Rights Fighter]

There are no hard and fast rules re the police taking computers, phones etc. I've known many cases where they've been seized yet nothing has been alleged with regard to those items. In other cases, the police haven't bothered.

I guess it depends on the procedures or "rules" to the specific police stations and/or forces.

[Ploppy]

The Police didn't take my phone. I actually used it at interview to show them pictures that supported my side of things, but they still didn't take it. They did tell me that it was within their power if they felt it necessary.

[Rights Fighter]

Well of COURSE they didn't take your phone! It had evidence that would help your case.....

[Wife]

The police seized my husband's computer and--

There are no hard and fast rules re the police taking computers, phones etc. I've known many cases where they've been seized yet nothing has been alleged with regard to those items. In other cases, the police haven't bothered.

I guess it depends on the procedures or "rules" to the specific police stations and/or forces.

We have recently had a private computer expert review the hard drive of my husband's computer and he has not found any indecent images or incriminating evidence.
This caused the CPS to adjourn the trial---as they were depending on the police computer evidence, report which magically produced indecent imagrs
I can only assume the police deliberately added these images to the report, as the defence expert found nothing on the hard drive.
Next week there is yet another hearing for the CPS to feed back their next proposed move.
our lawyer said that it is rare for independent computer experts to examine computer evidence, from the hard drive---is this true?
Idealy I would like to be hopeful, but the past two years have almost stripped me of any hope
Especially when the police are so corrupt
Though I do try to stay motivated ----and keep saying ---one day this will all be over

[Mr B]

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