Help - my son

[mouse]

Thanks for that, of course I have fought them all the way so some might say I have asked for it.

Hells Bells Tony! They really are picking on you. I am so sorry to read that.

It's par for the course if you challenge police abuse of their powers, most police officers in this Country do a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances, unfortunately they are blackened by the few who think the uniform makes them untouchable. The only way this corrupt minority will ever be stopped is from within but if any officers dare complain they can lose their job, or their life is made hell by the systerm and club culture. Unfortunately also many Judges feel that if they come out against police then it undermines the law and order system so abuse is often covered up again by club culture. If you have been falsley accused and convicted and you refuse to accept guilt and continue to fight in the hope of clearing your name someday then there are those who believe its their job to stop you.

[allatsea]

Update

Well, we had a visit from CID on Sunday - they want to interview our middle son as ES talked to him when he got home 'that morning'. They said it could show he wasn't trying to hide anything and was happy to talk about his night. Personally, I don't see what credibility that would have as they have had two months, theoretically, to talk about it. they are going to interview middle son tomorrow - won't take long cos he says the conversation was about ten seconds long, but he is 16 and could have been ten seconds or ten minutes... The email we received today said they wanted to get things together so that a decision could be made 'sooner than later'. Don't know whether that is good or bad as on Sunday he was talking about us 'wanting closure' on it all,

allatsea

[mouse]

allatsea

I would strongly advise against your son agreeing to an interview 4 as we know the police are experts at twisting and manipulating words out of context and at 16 he is not upto dealing with that. We have also seen how easy a witness can become a suspect even when it is just to put pressure on them to say what is required. If he is undewr no obligation to do so then it is best to politely and forcefully say no thanks. Whatever if you go ahead make sure he has a strong solicitor present and one of his parents and don't be afraid to stop the interview if you think its getting out of hand. The choice is your sons and if he goes ahead all I can say is it will be a useful experience for future.

[mouse]

allatsea your son might want to consider this

Innocence is No Defence
In fact, being innocent is one of the biggest handicaps to the defence of an innocent person, because their ignorance of the system and how it works is used against them, time and time again.

For many people, being questioned in relation to a serious crime is not, initially, something to be afraid of. They proceed on the basis of the old maxim "I've done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear." What these people don't realise is that a police investigation does not, necessarily, exist to clear the innocent and find the guilty. It exists to allow the police access to enough information to secure a conviction. There is a big difference.

If the police have decided, often quite arbitrarily, on a "suspect," they will systematically gather information which backs up their decision, even if that person is innocent. Information, for example, pointing to other suspects, will either be ignored or discounted as "irrelevant" because it does not fit with the picture the police are trying to piece together. Indeed, in many cases, the "investigation" becomes an exercise in finding "evidence" to back up only one line of "suspicion", and other areas are simply not investigated at all.

Innocent people try very hard to help the police by giving them as much information, however small or seemingly innocuous, believing that nothing they say can in any way incriminate them, because they haven't done anything wrong in the first place. They will backtrack, remembering small detailsŠ. "I went from the house to Joe's, and then onto Billy's at eight o'clock." Later, they might say, "No, wait, I've just remembered, after Joe's, I had to come back here because I'd left my phone at home."

The first sense of unease may begin when the police start to question this "change" in the story. Why did you tell us you went straight to Billy's? Why didn't you tell us you'd gone home? Was anybody in your house to confirm that you went there? The only answer an innocent person can give is "I forgot," but the police won't accept that. Still trying to explain themselves, an innocent person may then go on to try to provide explanations as to why they forgot, digging themselves into a deeper hole from the police perspective.

Still, though, people believe that the system will, sooner or later, highlight their innocence, and even if they have become a little uneasy about the line the police questioning is taking, they are still fairly confident that someone, somewhere will realise the police are on the wrong track, and it's all just a big mistake.

Then they are arrested. At this stage, the shock and bewilderment are overwhelming. Many wrongfully convicted people can't wait for the trial. The police, they reason, have got it all totally wrong, and a trial will show it. When the evidence comes out in court, it will become clear that the police constructed a case against the wrong person.

What they don't realise is that the information the police have gathered may very well "substantiate" the prosecution claims. That being the case, questions will not be asked in court about other possible areas of investigation, or other possible suspects, because neither of those have anything to do with the case being tried in court.

Only when the foreman of the jury stands up and says "Guilty" do these people realise that no-one is coming to rescue them. No-one cares that the wrong person is in the dock, or that an innocent person has just been convicted. All that matters is that a conviction has been secured.

Innocence is no defence. In fact, being innocent is one of the biggest handicaps to the defence of an innocent person, because their ignorance of the system and how it works is used against them, time and time again.
by Sandra Lean - June 2008

Under Arrest?

We all know and recognise the famous "caution" -

"Joe Bloggs, you are being arrested for the murder of Jack Black. You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be taken down and used in evidence against you."

You'd think, then, that anyone who has been arrested would know they had been arrested, and would have the right not to answer any questions until they have a solicitor present.

Well, if the caution was delivered exactly as it's shown here, that would be the case. But there are two significant problems with this.

Firstly, it's rarely delivered as clearly, or as obviously. Often the caution is hidden within a whole bunch of "information" fired at the "suspect" (who probably has no idea he is a suspect) by the arresting officer or officers.
Secondly, many people who are taken into a police station for questioning "under caution" have not actually been arrested.

In Scotland, there are two circumstances in which a person will be cautioned, held and questioned without actually having been arrested.

The first is as a "Voluntary Attender." Most people believe, at this stage, they are witnesses, helping the police with their enquiries. What they do not understand is that they are already a suspect, and anything they say may be used against them.

Consider the following, from a real life case:
The police officer first explains why they are in the police station, saying they need more information about the deceased from her "immediate friends" and a clearer understanding of the witness's "observations at that time." It's all very innocuous, with no hint that the "witness" is in any way "under suspicion." The officer then asks the witness to complete and sign a declaration of "Voluntary Attendance" which says "I agree to remain with police for interview regarding ŠŠ" and then "I understand I may terminate this interview at any time."

This might seem self evident - once there's nothing more you can tell the police, the interview will naturally come to an end Š. won't it? But then, after all this softly, softly introduction, and after the form is signed, the officer states, "OK, in fairness Š it's a procedural thing Š I have to caution you that you're not bound to answer any of these questions we put to you today, but if you do, your answers will be recorded, may be noted, and may be used in evidence."

Helping the police with their enquiries as a witness, you may believe the fact that it's just a "procedural thing" because the officer didn't say "may be used in evidence against you." There would be no point in obtaining information if it wasn't going to be used in evidence - it's the omission of the critical words "against you" that keeps the person believing he only a witness.

Weeks later comes "Detention under Section 14." Here the "witness" is told he is being detained for questioning. He is told "OK, you're going to be asked questions about the murder of X, you're not bound to answer these but if you do, your answers will be recorded and may be used in evidence." Once again, the words "against you" are omitted. This time, though, he is not free to terminate the interview - he must stay with the police for the full duration allowed by Section 14, after which the police must either arrest him, or set him free. But this is not explained to him by the police. He is still not told he is a suspect, and worse, he is not entitled to have a solicitor present, either as a Voluntary Attender or under Section 14.

He asks if he has been arrested and is told "No." He asks if he is being accused of the murder and is told "No."

Put yourself in that position. You haven't been arrested, you haven't heard the proper version of "the caution," you're not being accused of anything and you haven't been told that your answers may be used in evidence against you. What would you think had happened to you?

If you ever find yourself in a police station, helping police with their enquiries and are told that your evidence may be used "in evidence," beware. Your witness status has just turned to suspect status, and you won't even know it.

by Sandra Lean - July 2008

[allatsea]

Mouse - we have taken advice from our very experienced solicitor today and she has advised us to go ahead with the statement - it doesn't change elder son's story at all.

[mouse]

allatsea

Thanks for response, wish you every success and if you have a good solicitor you can't do much more. Hoping for a very happy outcome please keep us all informed...regards

[allatsea]

Update - of sorts

almost inevitably my son has been rebailed for another four weeks. We have been told that his file has been passed to the CPS who have to review it 'at various levels, to ensure a full and thorough investigation' has been carried out. We have no indication which way it will go as yet, but the OIC has said he hopes that a decision will be made well before his next bail date.

I'm sure many people will understand when I say that the waiting and knowing nothing is torture for us. Our son goes from extreme anger when talking about it to being almost laid back because he 'knows he's done nothing wrong', but as I've seen, innocence counts for little against accusations such as this.

allatsea

[0990]

the cps work at thier own pace , hope it goes well for your son , as you said this is the hardest part , hope it comes back nfa .

[worriedfather]

The Cps take their time, as for a "full and Through review"... if they think they have a chance of conviction, they will go for it. The "full and thorough review" for my son totally ignored evidence that should easily discredit the accuser, we were told that it was irrelevant.
I supect that the CPS are like the police and after convictions. The people who decide what information should be disclosed to the defence.... the police and the cps, there have been quite a few convictions overturned as the police and cps did not disclose information that would undermine their case. They are not corrupt..... Honest!

[largactyl1]

All this bailing and re-bailing is so cruel.

[worriedfather]

Unfortunately it does not effect them, i suspect that they have no idea of the pain and anguish that they cause. they get to go home safe in the knowledge that if they do something wrong, the system will protect them. They are not interested in the little people whose lives they ruin. 5 days to go

[witsend]

Dear worried Father
Thinking of you over the next couple of days.

[worriedfather]

Thanks witsend, this site is godsend to let off steam and find things out

[Midnight and Worried]

God how I feel for you,My Grandson has been bailed twice now since the middle of July,he is due to go back on Sunday.
Last time he went back they said they were still getting evidence from his phone which is an expensive one on contract,he's still paying for it but I did buy him a cheap one to keep him going.
I don't post very often but am always drawn back to this site late at night when my thoughts are the blackest that they could possibly be.The waiting is,as you say,absolute torture for me so I can only imagine how he feels.

Everyone who is suffering the way I am my heart goes out to you.

[landlady]

hi there, i know how you are feeling, i too have been put in the position of total dread, fear, helplessness. my son is seventeen now but he cries in my arms every night. i feel hopeless, i have wished terrible things on this woman that has done this to my son. nobody knows how it affects all the family. i pray to god that for you too it all comes to a good end. bless ya all xx