ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Liverpool incidents , police misconduct charges , UK incidents

Reply
Old 18th September 2012, 11:31 AM   #161
Hubert Cumberdale
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,140
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I sometimes think, we behave as if we live in an Inspector Alleyn novel, or maybe Rebus or Morse. The doughty detective always gets there in the end. The villain he fingers in the last chapter is the guy who did it. He thinks his way through the clues and makes the right deductions, and the case is solved.

Maybe we really live in the world of the Five Find-outers.

Rolfe.
Actually I think you'll find the vast majority of criminal cases lack any mystery or intrigue and are depressingly mundane and straightforward.
Hubert Cumberdale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 11:31 AM   #162
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
Yes Rolfe. The sheer dumb stupidity that ensured the largest public order event in. the. world. passed without so much as a hiccup.

There are 140,000 police officers supported by tens of thousands of civil staff providing a 24/7/365 service to over 60 million people under levels of scrutiny unheard of in any other public service, let alone a private company.

And yet, despite that level of scrutiny, despite the fact that the police deal with both the most vulnerable and the most reprehensible in society, the number of incidents involving "sheer dumb stupidity" are very small.

The police rarely make the news unless its bad news. Maybe you are counting the hits and ignoring the misses?
Nominated. Putting it that way really puts into perspective what the police deal with. Today two have been murdered with the media instantly criticising the police for having unarmed officers attend a routine report of a housebreaking.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 11:32 AM   #163
Hubert Cumberdale
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,140
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
I suppose thats one of the reasons why interviews are now taped.

The G4 case is interesting.
Hubert Cumberdale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 11:55 AM   #164
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
When taped interviews first appear at court cases the initial though was 'the police will be in trouble now'. But it was found that instead of the police supposedly fitting up criminals and making up what they said, the criminals were instead lapsing into police terminology when being interviewed. So you get a criminal suddenly talking about how he was 'proceeding along the pavement'.

It was also found the vast majority of interviews were deathly dull to listen to.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 12:14 PM   #165
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
Actually I think you'll find the vast majority of criminal cases lack any mystery or intrigue and are depressingly mundane and straightforward.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Nominated. Putting it that way really puts into perspective what the police deal with. Today two have been murdered with the media instantly criticising the police for having unarmed officers attend a routine report of a housebreaking.

Gosh, anyone would think from that that there had been some suggestion that all police are stupid, or all cases are botched.

Just as well nobody actually suggested that, isn't it?

Today's murders are absolutely appalling. I have not heard any criticism of the police at all in connection with that tragedy, and I cannot see where one is justified. There has of course again been discussion of whether this justifies suggesting that police officers should be armed for their own protection, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

This appalling tragedy certainly should remind anyone who needed reminding that most police do a good job which is occasionally very dangerous. It should not be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 12:28 PM   #166
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Rolfe, your language has strongly suggested you do not trust the police and are fearful of what they do.

A little reminder every so often that they are trustworthy and not to be feared is no bad thing.

ITNs news certainly had a critical tone asking why were unarmed officers sent into an area the killer was rumored to be hiding in. The joy of hindsight and the usual press attitude of should have done better.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 01:10 PM   #167
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
I'm fearful of the cops' tendency to go after the wrong person and fit them up for a crime. Not of being shot in the street.

Today's murders are absolutely appalling. They don't make Duckenfield's conduct any better, or make the Hillsborough bereaved families feel better.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 03:04 PM   #168
learner
Graduate Poster
 
learner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,689
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Nominated. Putting it that way really puts into perspective what the police deal with. Today two have been murdered with the media instantly criticising the police for having unarmed officers attend a routine report of a housebreaking.
I have been following this story across the media all day today and have not once heard anybody criticise the police for being unarmed.
All they have done is report that it is routine to be unarmed for call outs that do not indicate arms would be encountered along with discussion on whether they should be armed or not.
Where did you hear this "instant criticism" what radio/television station?

Just heard radio 5 report. last time the police were polled 2009. 82% were against being armed.
__________________
"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave
" How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again
learner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 05:25 PM   #169
JihadJane
not a camel
 
JihadJane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 71,509
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Rolfe, your language has strongly suggested you do not trust the police and are fearful of what they do.

A little reminder every so often that they are trustworthy and not to be feared is no bad thing.
LOL, of course the police are to feared, otherwise they wouldn't constitute a force. They represent the state's monopoly on violence.

One never knows whether or not one is dealing with a bent cop, so trusting cops simply for being cops is irrational. Their tendency to close ranks in adversity is institutional.
__________________
"Someone is a woman if she has no functional SRY gene, or no functional androgen response." Rolfe

Last edited by JihadJane; 18th September 2012 at 05:31 PM.
JihadJane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 06:26 PM   #170
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm fearful of the cops' tendency to go after the wrong person and fit them up for a crime. .......
It has happened, but it is very, very rare. To say there is a tendency because of some very very rare events is ridiculous. You have lost all rational perspective.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2012, 06:31 PM   #171
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
LOL, of course the police are to feared, otherwise they wouldn't constitute a force. They represent the state's monopoly on violence.

One never knows whether or not one is dealing with a bent cop, so trusting cops simply for being cops is irrational. Their tendency to close ranks in adversity is institutional.
That must cause you a huge problem in your day to day life. Considering you get bent bankers, teachers, shop assistants, lawyers, accountants, doctors etc.

Do you live in fear in a hole somewhere?

Oh and please, no matter what happens to you, never contact the police, or a doctor, or indeed anyone for anything as some of them are bent.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 01:43 AM   #172
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It has happened, but it is very, very rare. To say there is a tendency because of some very very rare events is ridiculous. You have lost all rational perspective.

No, I really haven't. I did say earlier that I trusted my socioeconomic group to keep me out of the category of people who are likely to get fitted up. It's a concern I have in general, but it's not something I worry about on a personal or daily basis.

On the other hand, when you've spent some time studying exactly what Harry Bell did to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, it's scary. Megrahi may be a foreigner of whom we know little, but Harry Bell is right here and seriously problematic. Then again, was Shirley McKie the sort of person you would imagine would be fitted up by the police for a nonexistent crime? And in the same incident, David Asbury seems to have been an ordinary tradesman who was fitted up for the murder of Marion Ross. Shirley was targeted because her evidence seemed likely to jemmy the case the police were constructing against Asbury. Shirley's life was ruined over that affair.

So, it's really quite rare. I don't think for a minute it's likely to happen to me. I still don't think it's a healthy situation.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 03:10 AM   #173
JihadJane
not a camel
 
JihadJane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 71,509
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That must cause you a huge problem in your day to day life. Considering you get bent bankers, teachers, shop assistants, lawyers, accountants, doctors etc.

Do you live in fear in a hole somewhere?

Oh and please, no matter what happens to you, never contact the police, or a doctor, or indeed anyone for anything as some of them are bent.
Strawman arguments. It's interesting to see how aggressively you seek to personalize the issue. I said it's unwise to trust a police person simply by virtue of their being a police person. Why did you need to pretend, instead, I said "Never contact the police"? It's almost as if you are trying to frame me! That's a habitual way of thinking you should give up now that have left the Force.

Your posts suggest that you are from a socio-economic class that believes it is safe from police intrusion and doesn't have to deal with the daily reality of the possibility of being stopped, searched and humiliated for nothing at all except ones skin colour or class or appearance.
__________________
"Someone is a woman if she has no functional SRY gene, or no functional androgen response." Rolfe

Last edited by JihadJane; 19th September 2012 at 03:15 AM.
JihadJane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 04:51 AM   #174
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
Nessie's a police officer, so yeah, I guess.

On the other hand, so was Shirley McKie.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 09:29 AM   #175
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
No, I really haven't. I did say earlier that I trusted my socioeconomic group to keep me out of the category of people who are likely to get fitted up. It's a concern I have in general, but it's not something I worry about on a personal or daily basis.

On the other hand, when you've spent some time studying exactly what Harry Bell did to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, it's scary. Megrahi may be a foreigner of whom we know little, but Harry Bell is right here and seriously problematic. Then again, was Shirley McKie the sort of person you would imagine would be fitted up by the police for a nonexistent crime? And in the same incident, David Asbury seems to have been an ordinary tradesman who was fitted up for the murder of Marion Ross. Shirley was targeted because her evidence seemed likely to jemmy the case the police were constructing against Asbury. Shirley's life was ruined over that affair.

So, it's really quite rare. I don't think for a minute it's likely to happen to me. I still don't think it's a healthy situation.

Rolfe.
You are in a socioeconomic group unlikely to be fitted up So the police target poor people to be fitted up?! Get a grip on reality.

I don't think it is a healthy situation either. But what about the similarly unhealthy situation with doctors and cover ups? Do you trust your doctor?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 09:37 AM   #176
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
Strawman arguments. It's interesting to see how aggressively you seek to personalize the issue. I said it's unwise to trust a police person simply by virtue of their being a police person. Why did you need to pretend, instead, I said "Never contact the police"? It's almost as if you are trying to frame me! That's a habitual way of thinking you should give up now that have left the Force.

Your posts suggest that you are from a socio-economic class that believes it is safe from police intrusion and doesn't have to deal with the daily reality of the possibility of being stopped, searched and humiliated for nothing at all except ones skin colour or class or appearance.
I did not say that you had said never contact the police, you are wrong there. What I did say was if you trust no police officer then how about going through the rest of your life without contacting the police, no matter what? Then, since there are doctors who cannot be trusted, how about never contacting a doctor again? That is why I asked if you live in a hole, to make a point about your inability to trust because of rare examples of bad conduct.

I am putting a perspective on what you are saying is a complete exaggeration that you cannot trust a police officer simply because they are a police officer.

I am in a group within my socioeconomic class who does not commit crime or do anything to attract the attention of the police. There are honest law abiding people who have no bad contacts with the police in every socioeconomic group.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 10:12 AM   #177
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
.... I said it's unwise to trust a police person simply by virtue of their being a police person. ....
In two much-viewed video talks, a law professor and a police detective give pretty much the same advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 10:55 AM   #178
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In two much-viewed video talks, a law professor and a police detective give pretty much the same advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
What they talk about is your right to silence and not incriminate yourself. The police have a right and duty to question people who they suspect has committed a crime.

I like the cops comment "your clients are stupid, they talk to the police". He is talking to law students who are learning about defence tactics and defence lawyers don't like confessions. The police and I would suggest all reasonable people think a confession or admission is a good, right and honourable thing to do.

Defence lawyers are generally self employed and need to criminals to stay in work. There is one local criminal to me whose defence lawyer referred to him as "the cash machine" as he commits so much crime he generates a huge income for the lawyer in legal aid defending him. He commits minor crimes so any punishment is short or often non existent.

It is nonsense to equate a lecture to prospective defence lawyers with not speaking to the police as they will fit you up. The cop and lawyer were speaking primarily about people who they know have committed a crime and getting them to shut up, not confess and allow a criminal to go free.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 12:32 PM   #179
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It has happened, but it is very, very rare. To say there is a tendency because of some very very rare events is ridiculous. You have lost all rational perspective.
What makes you think it's rare? It looks to me merely that it's rare that anything is done to put the record straight. When that happens, it's generally only after years of the authorities' clinging on to a position that is completely unsustainable. The truth is generally uncovered by investigative journalists, and not by anyone who supposedly is in charge of justice.

All this rather suggests that there is an iceberg of dodgy prosecutions, and it's only the tip that we get to hear about.
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 01:50 AM   #180
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,244
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The cop and lawyer were speaking primarily about people who they know have committed a crime and getting them to shut up, not confess and allow a criminal to go free.
That is absolutely not what he is talking about. He's talking about the desire of the police to get a conviction, and that anything you say to them is likely to be used against you.

Quote:
Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth, he will always give the police some information that can be used to help convict him.
Example

Originally Posted by Nessie
There is one local criminal to me whose defence lawyer referred to him as "the cash machine" as he commits so much crime he generates a huge income for the lawyer in legal aid defending him. He commits minor crimes so any punishment is short or often non existent.
Then you should report that lawyer to the Bar Standards Board, since it is against their code of practice for a lawyer to defend someone that he knows to be guilty.
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

Last edited by richardm; 20th September 2012 at 01:53 AM.
richardm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 02:28 AM   #181
JihadJane
not a camel
 
JihadJane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 71,509
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I did not say that you had said never contact the police, you are wrong there.
LOL. I'm afraid the evidence is there in black and white (now blue). What you said:

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Oh and please, no matter what happens to you, never contact the police, or a doctor, or indeed anyone for anything as some of them are bent.
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What I did say...
See above for what you did say.

Quote:
... was if you trust no police officer then how about going through the rest of your life without contacting the police, no matter what? Then, since there are doctors who cannot be trusted, how about never contacting a doctor again? That is why I asked if you live in a hole, to make a point about your inability to trust because of rare examples of bad conduct.
I never said anything about not contacting the police. Those were the words you dishonestly put into my mouth (strawman argument, false accusation)

Quote:
I am putting a perspective on what you are saying is a complete exaggeration that you cannot trust a police officer simply because they are a police officer.
We advise our children to be cautious about trusting strangers, even though most of them aren't pedophiles or child murderers.

Quote:
I am in a group within my socioeconomic class who does not commit crime...
Nonsense. All socio-economic classes have their criminal element.

Quote:
..or do anything to attract the attention of the police.
True, it sometimes take decades of concerted public pressure for the police to notice that a crime has been committed when it's one of their own.

Quote:
There are honest law abiding people who have no bad contacts with the police in every socioeconomic group.
And vice versa.

You are in a socio-economic class that gets away with crimes more easily that the ones in lower classes, because yours is closer to political power.
__________________
"Someone is a woman if she has no functional SRY gene, or no functional androgen response." Rolfe
JihadJane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 02:30 AM   #182
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by richardm View Post
Then you should report that lawyer to the Bar Standards Board, since it is against their code of practice for a lawyer to defend someone that he knows to be guilty.
Are you implying that the guilty do not have the right to a legal defense?
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 03:21 AM   #183
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Are you implying that the guilty do not have the right to a legal defense?

If an advocate knows for certain that his client is guilty, he is only allowed to offer a plea in mitigation.

It's possible the advocate Nessie refers to has only a strong suspicion that his client is probably guilty of at least some of the offences he is accused of.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 03:23 AM   #184
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,244
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Are you implying that the guilty do not have the right to a legal defense?
If a barrister knows for certain that his client is guilty - e.g. if he's confessed to the barrister that he did it - then he cannot defend him as though he is innocent.

Edit: or "should not".
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 03:27 AM   #185
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
Originally Posted by richardm View Post
That is absolutely not what he is talking about. He's talking about the desire of the police to get a conviction, and that anything you say to them is likely to be used against you.

Example

I think Nessie misunderstands what we're saying. I think it is probably extremely rare for the police to set about deliberately framing someone they know to be factually innocent. If it ever happens at all. However, what we are referring to is the fitting up of a suspect the police have convinced themselves is guilty or probably guilty.

Once an investigation has settled on a promising-looking suspect, tunnel vision can develop. This is reinforced by group-think and confirmation bias. It can get to the point where even evidence that is clearly exculpatory can be twisted round and presented as incriminatory. Irrelevant factors (like whether someone was eating a pizza in the afternoon or cuddled her boyfriend at a time of distress or bought underwear(!)) can be added to the mix and spun as evidence of a callous attitude or something like that. Then what's a bit of witness grooming or losing a statement or spinning a forensics report? We know they guy did it, we're just making sure the case is secure.

Jumping to unjustified conclusions and hanging on to these conclusions for grim death even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary is a common human failing. Police officers are as human as the rest of us.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th September 2012 at 03:29 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 04:45 AM   #186
Syameese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
However, what we are referring to is the fitting up of a suspect the police have convinced themselves is guilty or probably guilty.
Rolfe.
QFT - Sadly I have seen exactly this start to happen. Many years ago a colleague of my wife was found beaten to death on her property, her young child was also killed. She had been found by her husband who had raced her to hospital, but it was too late.

Not unreasonably at the start the police focused on him, but as the weeks went by it became pretty clear that was only where they were looking. About 5 weeks after the murder he said to a friend that he thought they were going to charge him.

Then, in what really was a bitter sweet moment, one morning we turned on the news to hear that another young mother had been murdered and her child had survived a suffocation attempt- only 100k/60 miles from where his wife had been killed. It was the same guy. He had met both families through work.

The really sickening thing then was the chief police investigator stating that my wife's colleagues husband wasn't ever a real suspect and had been cleared early in the investigation. This was a total deliberate lie, they had hounded him for weeks and were still doing so when the other murder occurred. He was in no doubt that they would have charged him if the other murder hadn't occurred. He was an easy target - all circumstantial - last to see her, found her, her blood on him etc.

It sickens me to this day to see how easily a miscarriage of justice could have happened and how narrowly focused the police were when they thought they had an easy answer.
Syameese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:14 AM   #187
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Syameese View Post
QFT - Sadly I have seen exactly this start to happen. Many years ago a colleague of my wife was found beaten to death on her property, her young child was also killed. She had been found by her husband who had raced her to hospital, but it was too late.

Not unreasonably at the start the police focused on him, but as the weeks went by it became pretty clear that was only where they were looking. About 5 weeks after the murder he said to a friend that he thought they were going to charge him.

Then, in what really was a bitter sweet moment, one morning we turned on the news to hear that another young mother had been murdered and her child had survived a suffocation attempt- only 100k/60 miles from where his wife had been killed. It was the same guy. He had met both families through work.

The really sickening thing then was the chief police investigator stating that my wife's colleagues husband wasn't ever a real suspect and had been cleared early in the investigation. This was a total deliberate lie, they had hounded him for weeks and were still doing so when the other murder occurred. He was in no doubt that they would have charged him if the other murder hadn't occurred. He was an easy target - all circumstantial - last to see her, found her, her blood on him etc.

It sickens me to this day to see how easily a miscarriage of justice could have happened and how narrowly focused the police were when they thought they had an easy answer.
Sian Jenkins - same story. Similar anyway. Rolfe will know that one. This seems to have wandered a little bit away from Hillsborough, but what do people think: are the cops being bad or just dumb when the latch onto the wrong guy and refuse to consider anything else?
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:44 AM   #188
Syameese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
are the cops being bad or just dumb when the latch onto the wrong guy and refuse to consider anything else?
Some cops are bad, some are dumb, some are smart and most are like the rest of us .

Setting aside the horror stories, I still think most of them are doing a very difficult job the best they can with the resources they have. I think the problem starts when pressure is put on clean up rates etc - and advancement (or at least the avoidance of censure) is dependent on the appearance of success.

When career advancement is more dependent on successful prosecutions or the avoidance of blame ( eg Hillsborough) than actually finding out who "did it' - then there is a problem. But imo this isn't just a police problem, it is the environment the public, press and politicians create that demands answers and villains, particularly those we feel comfortable with blaming (eg drunken football fans) or a murderous husband that we don't actually know..
Syameese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:55 AM   #189
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
In the Jenkins case (it's Sion Jenkins, he's a guy), I read accounts of another suspect who was mentally ill and could not be questioned by the police. The hints are that because he was a very hard suspect to go after, the police went after Sion instead. He is the absolute prime example contradicting my comment about being in a safe socioeconomic group. But as usual, when these groups are targeted, it's because one of their relatives has been murdered.

I don't believe anyone said cynically, well we can't go after this guy who probably did it so the foster daddy will do instead. I think they took the line of least resistance though, and managed to persuade themselves that Sion had murdered Billie-Jo in a period of time which ranged from three minutes to minus five minutes, for no motive at all, then carried on as if nothing had happened.

They embarked on a campaign of smearing his reputation in public. The minor misdemeanour of sexing-up his CV when he applied for a job a good few years previously was repeated ad nauseam as if it proved he was the sort of person likely to bludgeon his child to death. They tried repeatedly to find some of his ex-pupils prepared to accuse him of losing his temper or snapping with them at school, but amazingly enough they found nobody.

At trial, they were faced with the fact that there was only a tiny mist of Billie-Jo's blood on his jacket, which was pretty damn unlikely to have been all there was if he'd bludgeoned her to death. The defence were saying that blood got there when he cradled her in his arms when he found her dead or breathing her last. The prosecution had to refute this, or lose. They hawked the question round a number of respiratory specialists who declined to go to court and say that was impossible. Then they called on the infamous Dr. David Southall, he of the TV-interview accusation against Steve Clark for murdering his newborn babies, the Munchausen-by-proxy proponent. Southall declared it was absolutely impossible for that blood to have got there by Billie-Jo exhaling, and the only interpretation was that Sion had beaten her to death.

Southall won his long-running battle with the GMC, but I think he's a dangerous fanatic who is used as a hired gun by the Crown when they want to make a charge of child harm stick against a parent. It's notable that the prosecution had to shop around and couldn't find an expert in the most appropriate field to give the evidence they wanted, so they got the usual guy in.

It's absolutely bloody obvious to anyone with a normal complement of marbles that Billie-Jo Jenkins was killed by an intruder who approached her by walking round the side of the house, not through the house, and that her foster father had nothing to do with it. But the police got an idea in their head, which is the most dangerous thing that can happen for an innocent suspect.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th September 2012 at 07:47 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 06:15 AM   #190
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Syameese View Post
Some cops are bad, some are dumb, some are smart and most are like the rest of us .

Setting aside the horror stories, I still think most of them are doing a very difficult job the best they can with the resources they have. I think the problem starts when pressure is put on clean up rates etc - and advancement (or at least the avoidance of censure) is dependent on the appearance of success.

When career advancement is more dependent on successful prosecutions or the avoidance of blame ( eg Hillsborough) than actually finding out who "did it' - then there is a problem. But imo this isn't just a police problem, it is the environment the public, press and politicians create that demands answers and villains, particularly those we feel comfortable with blaming (eg drunken football fans) or a murderous husband that we don't actually know..
Why do you think this? Is it that you like to think it as it makes you feel good? I am not being snarky, as I too incline to this view but I have not the slightest basis for it. OTOH I can think of quite a few instances where I would seriously criticise the police for being slow, stupid or incompetent. They are pretty good at traffic offences and with low hanging fruit but give them anything else and it seems to be a different story.

Example: a client of mine caught a group of its employees in a fraud. There was plenty of evidence and I would have had no problem running a civil claim against these people but that would have cost money and they might not have been able to afford to pay compensation or my costs so ... we involved the police. And the police were slow, stupid and incompetent. My client had to make a formal complaint before they would do anything. Then they piddled around for a while then they lost interest, without bothering to tell my client anything. Useless. And also typical.

So, where does your belief come from?
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 06:17 AM   #191
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In the Jenkins case (It's Sion Jenkins, he's a guy), I read accounts of another suspect who was mentally ill and could not be questioned by the police. The hints are that because he was a very hard suspect to go after, the police went after Sion instead. He is the absolute prime example contradicting my comment about being in a safe socioeconomic group. But as usual, when these groups are targeted, it's because one of their relatives has been murdered.

I don't believe anyone said cynically, well we can't go after this guy who probably did it so the foster daddy will do instead. I think they took the line of least resistance though, and managed to persuade themselves that Sion had murdered Billie-Jo in a period of time which ranged from three minutes to minus five minutes, for no motive at all, then carried on as if nothing had happened.

They embarked on a campaign of smearing his reputation in public. The minor misdemeanour of sexing-up his CV when he applied for a job a good few years previously was repeated ad nauseam as if it proved he was the sort of person likely to bludgeon his child to death. They tried repeatedly to find some of his ex-pupils prepared to accuse him of losing his temper or snapping with them at school, but amazingly enough they found nobody.

At trial, they were faced with the fact that there was only a tiny mist of Billie-Jo's blood on his jacket, which was pretty damn unlikely to have been all there was if he'd bludgeoned her to death. The defence were saying that blood got there when he cradled her in his arms when he found her dead or breathing her last. The prosecution had to refute this, or lose. They hawked the question round a number of respiratory specialists who declined to go to court and say that was impossible. Then they called on the infamous Dr. David Southall, he of the TV-interview accusation against Steve Clark for murdering his newborn babies, the the Munchausen-by-proxy proponent. Southall declared it was absolutely impossible for that blood to have got there by Billie-Jo exhaling, and the only interpretation was that Sion had beaten her to death.

Southall won his long-running battle with the GMC, but I think he's a dangerous fanatic who is used as a hired gun by the Crown when they want to make a charge of child harm stick against a parent. It's notable that the prosecution had to shop around and coudln't find an expert in the most appropriate field to give the evidence they wanted, so they got the usual guy in.

It's absolutely bloody obvious to anyone with a normal complement of marbles that Billie-Jo Jenkins was killed by an intruder who approached her by walking round the side of the house, not through the house, and that her foster father had nothing to do with it. But the police got an idea in their head, which is the most dangerous thing that can happen for an innocent suspect.

Rolfe.
Yes, Sion. You have corrected me on this before
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 06:29 AM   #192
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
If an advocate knows for certain that his client is guilty, he is only allowed to offer a plea in mitigation.
Rolfe.
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html

"The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty
(10/12/2005)

The single most requested topic by Ethics Scoreboard readers is in the area of criminal defense lawyer ethics: how can it be right for an attorney to defend in court an individual that he or she knows is guilty? The fact that so many Americans are perplexed by this after two centuries is an indictment of the legal profession, which has flunked its obligation to protect its role in a crucial Constitutional right by making sure that it is understood. A few years ago, Fox TV commentator Bill O'Reilly led a campaign to get California criminal lawyer Jeffrey Feldman disbarred because leaked plea bargaining sessions showed that he knew his client, child killer David Westerfield, was guilty of murder while Feldman was vigorously disputing his guilt in court. O'Reilly pronounced Feldman a liar. He was wrong, but his confusion, in this matter at least, is excusable."


"
Feldman did his job, and the prosecution and jury did theirs: David Westerfield was convicted. But what about the equally guilty O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted? If the late Johnny Cochran and the rest of O.J.'s legal team knew he was guilty, didn't they knowingly perpetrate a terrible miscarriage of justice. Didn't they willingly let a double murderer loose on the golf courses of Florida and California? How can that be ethical?
Of course, we don't know if Simpson's lawyers "knew" he was guilty. Many defense attorneys don't want to know, because knowing can make it harder (or impossible) for them to do their jobs. It can be difficult to point out flaws in the prosecution's case if you are hoping that the prosecution puts on a slam dunk case and the homicidal monster sitting next to you gets locked up for good as a result. And many defense lawyers set out to convince themselves of a defendant's innocence, no matter how unlikely, because such a mindset helps them make sure that they won't subconsciously do a sub-par job out of sympathy for the victims or revulsion for their client.
But even assuming that the Simpson legal team was certain that O.J. hacked Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown to death, they had reason to sleep soundly on the night after the acquittal. They held up their end of the Constitutional directive. They ensured O.J. a fair trial, which every American from Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer to Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart to you and I, must have before the government takes away our freedom."
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 06:55 AM   #193
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,244
Well that's nice for the USA where according to what you're saying there a lawyer is apparently free to deliberately lie in court.

In the UK, a barrister works under a different code of ethics, which boils down to: a lawyer cannot deceive a court knowingly.

If a client tells his advocate that he is guilty, the lawyer can't say in court that he's innocent, and he cannot call him to give evidence that is known to be false or the lawyer would then be a party to the client's perjury. This essentially means that once a client has confessed to his lawyer then the lawyer must either give up the case or persuade the client to plead guilty in court.

Is the suspect not entitled to a defence in court? Yes, of course he is - another lawyer will pick up the case. And in fact if the client tells his lawyer that he is innocent then no matter what the lawyer's view on the strengths of or otherwise of the case then he or she is obliged to work in his defence. In fact it's one of the strongest rules that a lawyer must work for a client if he comes up at the taxi-rank and can't refuse to represent someone because they don't like the look of them or doesn't believe in their case.

Otherwise, some people wouldn't get a barrister to defend them at all, which would break the entire system.
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

Last edited by richardm; 20th September 2012 at 06:58 AM.
richardm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 06:59 AM   #194
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by richardm View Post
Well that's nice for the USA where according to what you're saying there a lawyer is apparently free to deliberately lie in court. .
He is not free to lie to the court. He must argue against the prosecution to ensure that the prosecution has a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Or so I understand the link I posted.

IANAL.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 07:12 AM   #195
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by richardm View Post
Well that's nice for the USA where according to what you're saying there a lawyer is apparently free to deliberately lie in court.

In the UK, a barrister works under a different code of ethics, which boils down to: a lawyer cannot deceive a court knowingly.

If a client tells his advocate that he is guilty, the lawyer can't say in court that he's innocent, and he cannot call him to give evidence that is known to be false or the lawyer would then be a party to the client's perjury. This essentially means that once a client has confessed to his lawyer then the lawyer must either give up the case or persuade the client to plead guilty in court.

Is the suspect not entitled to a defence in court? Yes, of course he is - another lawyer will pick up the case. And in fact if the client tells his lawyer that he is innocent then no matter what the lawyer's view on the strengths of or otherwise of the case then he or she is obliged to work in his defence. In fact it's one of the strongest rules that a lawyer must work for a client if he comes up at the taxi-rank and can't refuse to represent someone because they don't like the look of them or doesn't believe in their case.

Otherwise, some people wouldn't get a barrister to defend them at all, which would break the entire system.
This is not correct. A lawyer in England may represent a client he knows to be guilty with complete propriety but within limits you have yourself described. He may not put his client on the stand to tell lies (in effect, his client cannot testify) nor can he advance a positive case of innocence. He cannot challenge prosecution testimony he knows to be true but he can test the reliability and sufficiency of the prosecution case, which still has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A classic example of such a defence, indeed a successful defence, is the conspiracy (to murder) trial of Jeremy Thorpe, the leader of the Liberal party, which took place in 1978 or 1979.

He had engaged in a homosexual affair in the 1960s when homosexuality was a criminal offence and the affair came back to haunt him just as he seemed to be making a popular breakthrough so, it was alleged, he conspired to have his former lover shot but the plan backfired as only his dog was killed then the gun jammed and the guy survived unscathed. It was a sensational trial which I remember well, as I was studying law at the time.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 07:56 AM   #196
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,349
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In the Jenkins case (It's Sion Jenkins, he's a guy), I read accounts of another suspect who was mentally ill and could not be questioned by the police. The hints are that because he was a very hard suspect to go after, the police went after Sion instead. He is the absolute prime example contradicting my comment about being in a safe socioeconomic group. But as usual, when these groups are targeted, it's because one of their relatives has been murdered.

I don't believe anyone said cynically, well we can't go after this guy who probably did it so the foster daddy will do instead. I think they took the line of least resistance though, and managed to persuade themselves that Sion had murdered Billie-Jo in a period of time which ranged from three minutes to minus five minutes, for no motive at all, then carried on as if nothing had happened.

They embarked on a campaign of smearing his reputation in public. The minor misdemeanour of sexing-up his CV when he applied for a job a good few years previously was repeated ad nauseam as if it proved he was the sort of person likely to bludgeon his child to death. They tried repeatedly to find some of his ex-pupils prepared to accuse him of losing his temper or snapping with them at school, but amazingly enough they found nobody.

At trial, they were faced with the fact that there was only a tiny mist of Billie-Jo's blood on his jacket, which was pretty damn unlikely to have been all there was if he'd bludgeoned her to death. The defence were saying that blood got there when he cradled her in his arms when he found her dead or breathing her last. The prosecution had to refute this, or lose. They hawked the question round a number of respiratory specialists who declined to go to court and say that was impossible. Then they called on the infamous Dr. David Southall, he of the TV-interview accusation against Steve Clark for murdering his newborn babies, the the Munchausen-by-proxy proponent. Southall declared it was absolutely impossible for that blood to have got there by Billie-Jo exhaling, and the only interpretation was that Sion had beaten her to death.

Southall won his long-running battle with the GMC, but I think he's a dangerous fanatic who is used as a hired gun by the Crown when they want to make a charge of child harm stick against a parent. It's notable that the prosecution had to shop around and coudln't find an expert in the most appropriate field to give the evidence they wanted, so they got the usual guy in.

It's absolutely bloody obvious to anyone with a normal complement of marbles that Billie-Jo Jenkins was killed by an intruder who approached her by walking round the side of the house, not through the house, and that her foster father had nothing to do with it. But the police got an idea in their head, which is the most dangerous thing that can happen for an innocent suspect.

Rolfe.
This reminds me, again, of James Cameron, Keith Simpson, Bernard Spilsbury and the danger of over-confident celebrity experts.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 08:26 AM   #197
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
What makes you think it's rare? It looks to me merely that it's rare that anything is done to put the record straight. When that happens, it's generally only after years of the authorities' clinging on to a position that is completely unsustainable. The truth is generally uncovered by investigative journalists, and not by anyone who supposedly is in charge of justice.

All this rather suggests that there is an iceberg of dodgy prosecutions, and it's only the tip that we get to hear about.
Go to a court and watch whats happening and the level of evidence for cases. People who think there is widespread fitting up need to evidence that.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 08:31 AM   #198
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by richardm View Post
That is absolutely not what he is talking about. He's talking about the desire of the police to get a conviction, and that anything you say to them is likely to be used against you.

Example



Then you should report that lawyer to the Bar Standards Board, since it is against their code of practice for a lawyer to defend someone that he knows to be guilty.
He is speaking about the police's duty to investigate crime and question people about that. He then points out anything incriminating you say will be used as evidence. There is nothing unreasonable about that, or do you want the whole investigation process to grind to a halt?

Reporting a lawyer is not as simple as that. All the lawyer is doing is presenting their clients version of events and they can say, I did not know they were lying. In any case the example I gave was not of a client who lies. He just commits tons of crime and gets represented in court as he attends pleading diets, where he usually pleads guilty.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 08:42 AM   #199
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
LOL. I'm afraid the evidence is there in black and white (now blue). What you said:





See above for what you did say.



I never said anything about not contacting the police. Those were the words you dishonestly put into my mouth (strawman argument, false accusation)



We advise our children to be cautious about trusting strangers, even though most of them aren't pedophiles or child murderers.



Nonsense. All socio-economic classes have their criminal element.



True, it sometimes take decades of concerted public pressure for the police to notice that a crime has been committed when it's one of their own.



And vice versa.

You are in a socio-economic class that gets away with crimes more easily that the ones in lower classes, because yours is closer to political power.
You cannot read and the evidence is there you cannot read. He is what you said, the key part in bold

Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
Strawman arguments. It's interesting to see how aggressively you seek to personalize the issue. I said it's unwise to trust a police person simply by virtue of their being a police person. Why did you need to pretend, instead, I said "Never contact the police"? It's almost as if you are trying to frame me! That's a habitual way of thinking you should give up now that have left the Force.

.....

He is what I actually said

"Oh and please, no matter what happens to you, never contact the police, or a doctor, or indeed anyone for anything as some of them are bent."

So at no point did I say, that you had said never contact the police. It was on me who said it, not you. I did not put those words into your mouth, you did.

If your child is alone and needs help, what do you say to them about going to a police officer?

I agree all economic groups have criminals, I said that I am one of the ones in my group who does not, which clearly recognises others do. Furthermore
I am in a group who is in a group who is less likely to commit crime full stop. It has nothing to do with being closer to power.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 08:50 AM   #200
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,439
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I think Nessie misunderstands what we're saying. I think it is probably extremely rare for the police to set about deliberately framing someone they know to be factually innocent. If it ever happens at all. However, what we are referring to is the fitting up of a suspect the police have convinced themselves is guilty or probably guilty.

Once an investigation has settled on a promising-looking suspect, tunnel vision can develop. This is reinforced by group-think and confirmation bias. It can get to the point where even evidence that is clearly exculpatory can be twisted round and presented as incriminatory. Irrelevant factors (like whether someone was eating a pizza in the afternoon or cuddled her boyfriend at a time of distress or bought underwear(!)) can be added to the mix and spun as evidence of a callous attitude or something like that. Then what's a bit of witness grooming or losing a statement or spinning a forensics report? We know they guy did it, we're just making sure the case is secure.

Jumping to unjustified conclusions and hanging on to these conclusions for grim death even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary is a common human failing. Police officers are as human as the rest of us.

Rolfe.
I fully understand what you are saying.

If the reference to underwear is the one I am thinking of, that was the defence who came up with that line to try and discredit the main witness (rape case, Glasgow High Court).

As for witness grooming, yes it happens, as it does with the accused and advice they get from the defence. Indeed much of the criticism you have for the prosecution is mirrored by the defence and comes in response to defence tactics. It is horrible to watch in court when a trial becomes a games of tactics, bluff and counter bluff and lawyers egos take over.

At least you acknowledge it is a human failing, so it applies to those who are sure it is a miscarriage of justice as well, they will get tunnel vision as well.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.