Lowlife scrotes

Bernie174 said:
And my point was that it's very easy to come up with the Oh Police didn't do this that or the other", but there's usually a good reason behind that.
Click to expand...


Bit of a shame joe public's never informed of the reasons, because without, it simply appears like apathy.

You're right, people are quick to complain when it appears the police aren't interested; but by the same token, hearing "There are reasons, but we can't possibly tell you / you wouldn't understand" also get's very boring.
 
F1.2 said:
In my area the Police sort it out as follow :-

A letter arrives in the post

" Sorry to hear you have been the victim of crime "

Case closed :rage:
Click to expand...

I've had that letter ;)
 
fabs said:
It wouldn't get to court in the first place, that's the whole point. Circumstantial evidence at best, CPS wouldn't entertain it.
Click to expand...

Marc,

There is nothing circumstantial about fingerprints being recovered from 'inside' a vehicle (or house) if the identified individual has no right to be there or has no legitimate access. I would be the first person to admit that a fingerprint or even DNA found outside a vehicle is next to useless.

Whilst the defendant may have a defence (of which some are truly pathetic and obviously a pack of lies, and in other cases more plausible) He / she is entitled to be represented in Court However, It does not mean that their defence is 'Ipso facto'. It is up to the prosecution witnesses to prove the offence. The CPS are very amenable to prosecution (contrary to how they may be depicted in TV dramas) and adopted a streamlined forensic reporting process to facilitate offenders appearing before the Court quickly when fingerprint of DNA is recovered at the scene.

From the CPS Prosecution and Policy Guidelines:

"In any case in which material evidence against a person consists of a DNA or fingerprint or other forensic analysis, confirmation of the match report, accompanied by other supporting evidence in the case, or positive fingerprint identification will suffice for the purposes of making a charging decision and for the magistrates’ court initial hearing.

Preliminary information on finger print lifts must indicate the location and position of any identified finger prints and their significance. Also notice should be given of any other fingerprints lifted and not belonging to the suspect; whether these have been identified and if so, whether the persons concerned have been eliminated from the enquiry. A full evidential statement detailing the analysis will only be required if the case proceeds to trial and aspects of the report are challenged by the defence"

I have given evidence in court on both fingerprints, DNA, and other contact trace evidence recovered from Theft from Motor Vehicles like this and many other serious offences over a twenty year period. Lets not forget that forensic evidence is just not to prove or implicate the suspects involvement in the offence, but also to prove their innocence or eliminate them from the enquiry - a fact often forgotten or ignored by the media.
 
F1.2 said:
In my area the Police sort it out as follow :-

A letter arrives in the post

" Sorry to hear you have been the victim of crime "

Case closed :rage:
Click to expand...

Sadly, with the police service being cut back (another 20% 2014/15) and also the CPS the whole of the UK criminal justice system is suffering. Cases are being thrown out of court and basic mistakes are being made, that's if the 'Crime' is ever recorded in the first place. It is very sad that as a victim of crime to be told "sorry there is nothing we can do for you" With recent reports of 1 in 5 offences not being recorded this is an alarming trend. However, A large amount of crime goes unrecorded because victims don't tell the police.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Marc,

There is nothing circumstantial about fingerprints being recovered from 'inside' a vehicle (or house) if the identified individual has no right to be there or has no legitimate access. I would be the first person to admit that a fingerprint or even DNA found outside a vehicle is next to useless.

Whilst the defendant may have a defence (of which some are truly pathetic and obviously a pack of lies, and in other cases more plausible) He / she is entitled to be represented in Court However, It does not mean that their defence is 'Ipso facto'. It is up to the prosecution witnesses to prove the offence. The CPS are very amenable to prosecution (contrary to how they may be depicted in TV dramas) and adopted a streamlined forensic reporting process to facilitate offenders appearing before the Court quickly when fingerprint of DNA is recovered at the scene.

From the CPS Prosecution and Policy Guidelines:

"In any case in which material evidence against a person consists of a DNA or fingerprint or other forensic analysis, confirmation of the match report, accompanied by other supporting evidence in the case, or positive fingerprint identification will suffice for the purposes of making a charging decision and for the magistrates’ court initial hearing.

Preliminary information on finger print lifts must indicate the location and position of any identified finger prints and their significance. Also notice should be given of any other fingerprints lifted and not belonging to the suspect; whether these have been identified and if so, whether the persons concerned have been eliminated from the enquiry. A full evidential statement detailing the analysis will only be required if the case proceeds to trial and aspects of the report are challenged by the defence"

I have given evidence in court on both fingerprints, DNA, and other contact trace evidence recovered from Theft from Motor Vehicles like this and many other serious offences over a twenty year period. Lets not forget that forensic evidence is just not to prove or implicate the suspects involvement in the offence, but also to prove their innocence or eliminate them from the enquiry - a fact often forgotten or ignored by the media.
Click to expand...

Yes, fingerprints inside the car, on its own, is circumstantial (houses are different) as all it proves is that the suspect touched the inside of the car. He could have done that leaning in to have a look after he'd noticed the window had been smashed. On its own, not enough to make a court case.
 
fabs said:
Yes, fingerprints inside the car, on its own, is circumstantial (houses are different) as all it proves is that the suspect touched the inside of the car. He could have done that leaning in to have a look after he'd noticed the window had been smashed. On its own, not enough to make a court case.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your persistence in saying it's circumstantial - Did you not read my previous post in full ?

To take your point further then. This is a common defence. In many cases the suspect will come up with "you've got my prints inside the car because I leaned in to have a look". This defence is often negated by a good prosecution case and a diligent examination, notation, photography and the interviewing officer, it all depends on the orientation and where these marks are in the vehicle. The forensic and fingerprint examination is about putting this in to context and providing that evidence to the OIC and the Court.

An example, front off side drivers window smashed. Suspects fingerprints found on paperwork inside glove box or inside drivers door pointing 3 o'clock, 10" down from drivers internal cill. Now if this is the case then the offender has extremely longs arms or is a contortionist ! - everything is measured and documented.

In most cases the suspect will even deny touching the car in the first place or go "no comment" in interview. In which case it's even easier.
 
Bit of a shame joe public's never informed of the reasons, because without, it simply appears like apathy.

You're right, people are quick to complain when it appears the police aren't interested; but by the same token, hearing "There are reasons, but we can't possibly tell you / you wouldn't understand" also get's very boring.
Click to expand...

I've never heard those as responses, thats not to say it's never happened, simply it's not as prevalent as your point implies. I'd always happily explain why we didn't fingerprint cars, it's very easy to show them the reasoning, all you have to do is look at the surfaces, almost nothing is smooth, the windows, mirrors and the plastic covering the instruments and thats about it. everything else has an uneven surface, and you wont get a mark lifted from that which will stand comparison or a defence cross examination. Not only that, but of course a car inside is covered in prints on prints on prints (where they can be lifted), it looks like a spirograph gone very seriously wrong. So even if you find a print, it's usually useless.

The problem is nowadays too many people have watched CSI Bognor, and think it's oh so simple, I mean they can solve it in 45 minutes. Leaving aside half the kit they have doesn't exist, Mr Bad Guy watches the same thing, but as a training film. They know what you can get from a crime scene and what you can't, probably better than I do! Of course the real world isn't like that.


I have given evidence in court on both fingerprints, DNA, and other contact trace evidence recovered from Theft from Motor Vehicles like this and many other serious offences over a twenty year period.
Click to expand...

Really? So no negative Interview under caution to go with it? If so you are the only person in the UK thats had a successful prosecution on it! A Solicitor straight out of Uni, with no experience would make mincemeat of that, unless the defendant was stupid and pleaded to it, and if that was the only evidence and he did, then he would deserve everything he got!

The CPS would never go with that, and nor would I! Whats more, I wouldn't go with that evidence alone for a theft from Motor vehicle when we made charging decisions. it's doomed to fail.

I think you are misrepresenting the CPS Guidance as well. They are not saying that all thats needed is a forensic match!
 
In most cases the suspect will even deny touching the car in the first place or go "no comment" in interview. In which case it's even easier.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you were a Police Officer? A no comment interview helps no one, it gfives him the oportunity to come up with some cobblers at court. A Finger print intrerview is where you want him to deny everything....eg

Q:Do you know anyone thats got a blue Astra?
A:No
Q Do you know anyone who lives in Acacia Road?
A:No
Q: Have you ever been in Acacia Road?
A:No
Q:Whats your job?
A:I am unemployed
Q:confused:o you don't work on cars then?
A: No

and so on.......

End result one knackered defendent, he can't later claim he saw a car lent into it, oh yes, there was some documents on the floor, "I looked at them to see who the owner was so I could go and tell him his motor's been broken into." and put a bloody great big hole in everything you have put forward.

Its a theft from/criminal damage to Motor vehicle, pretty much certain to be dealt with at Magistrates, where he can fool the panel of Muppets, and hope its not a DJ. Or in the unlikely event of getting committed up the road, Jury's are even more gullible.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Really? So no negative Interview under caution to go with it? If so you are the only person in the UK thats had a successful prosecution on it! A Solicitor straight out of Uni, with no experience would make mincemeat of that, unless the defendant was stupid and pleaded to it, and if that was the only evidence and he did, then he would deserve everything he got!

The CPS would never go with that, and nor would I! Whats more, I wouldn't go with that evidence alone for a theft from Motor vehicle when we made charging decisions. it's doomed to fail.

I think you are misrepresenting the CPS Guidance as well. They are not saying that all thats needed is a forensic match!
Click to expand...

Being led through evidence-in-chief under oath followed by a cross-examination - standard !!!
 
Yes, and being spit roasted by cross examination! Standard but in your proposition with a predictable result. He walks. Your own fault for leaving big holes in your case.

Of course thats your mistake, a good fingerprint interview and it's Guilty plea, brief facts, 4 hours for court for payment please Sarge.
 
Bernie174 said:
Yes, and being spit roasted by cross examination! Standard but in your proposition with a predictable result. He walks. Your own fault for leaving big holes in your case.

Of course thats your mistake, a good fingerprint interview and it's Guilty plea, brief facts, 4 hours for court for payment please Sarge.
Click to expand...

No substitute for a good interview by the Interviewing Officer which I mentioned earlier today
 
Last edited:
No substitute for a good interview by the Interviewing Officer which I mentioned earlier today
Click to expand...

Must have made me great then! I never had a no comment interview where I had fingerprint evidence, and I've never had a fingerprint evidence case go not guilty either. Probably because I had all bases covered, there were no outers.
 
Bernie174 said:
Must have made me great then! I never had a no comment interview where I had fingerprint evidence, and I've never had a fingerprint evidence case go not guilty either. Probably because I had all bases covered, there were no outers.
Click to expand...

That's good Bernie, and that's how it should be. Sadly not all Police Officers are particularly forensic savvy, I've known stolen cheques to be faxed to the fingerprint lab. Officers recovering cigarette butts with their fingers depositing DNA on them etc. it's always going to be a combination of good evidence and interviewing that will lead to a successful prosecution.
 
Great discussion guys (Bernie & Nick) :thumbs:
Its interesting to see "both sides" of the argument.
although you are both on the same side as it were.
(That wasn't meant as a sarcastic comment BTW)

One little anecdote told to me by a police trainer, since retired.
In the interview room the "rookie" officer removed a knife from the "evidence case"
Said said to the "accused" are your fingerprints on this knife?
The "Accused" took the knife from the officer, studied it for a few minutes, turning it over,
upside-down etc. and finally said, "Yep"
Game over Eh? ;)

(This was actually a real interview, not a training session ;) )
 
That's good Bernie, and that's how it should be. Sadly not all Police Officers are particularly forensic savvy, I've known stolen cheques to be faxed to the fingerprint lab.
Click to expand...

I did a 3 month attachment in Lab Liason when I was a young spotty faced Police Cadet! So I saw some of the howlers, some by so called experienced CID officers. 2 weeks with a SOCO as part of that was very good training.

It has to be said that there was very little training given to Uniform officers, it was very much learn by error, helped no one.
 
Bernie174 said:
I did a 3 month attachment in Lab Liason when I was a young spotty faced Police Cadet! So I saw some of the howlers, some by so called experienced CID officers. 2 weeks with a SOCO as part of that was very good training.

It has to be said that there was very little training given to Uniform officers, it was very much learn by error, helped no one.
Click to expand...

I agree, these days there is much more forensic awareness being delivered not only to Police Officers, CPS, but also to Paramedics, A&E Staff and Fire Fighters. A multi-disciplinary approach being favoured. I think it's a really positive step.
 
Cobra said:
I'm not bashing anyone.
Its a fact and I stated a fact.
Click to expand...

You would almost think he had a vested interest in defending the police in every thread they are discussed.....

;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
when I have been accused of road traffic offences the police seem to bend over backwards to bring a charge against me and no I'm not yer actual Arfur Daly or Simon Templar. Or done time etc Only had 3 points on 2 seperate occasions 30 years since passing my test

One example. Drove an old Commer van, the big ends went and punched a hole in the crankcase, managed to coast to a halt and left the vehicle legally parked and unnatended. Before I could recover it someone hit it.

I received a letter of intended prosecution regarding
Leaving the site of a RTA having failed to stop, exchange details or report the incident within 24hrs

They initially refused to accept the true version of what actually happened and of course also not interesed in pursing careless driving on the part of the other driver - from the damage she must have been going at quite some speed

Honor Blackman has been quoted that she dislikes both police and politicians because they are arrogant and do not provide the service trhey should
 
I received a letter of intended prosecution regarding
Leaving the site of a RTA having failed to stop, exchange details or report the incident within 24hrs
Click to expand...

I presume there's more to this story?

That's the problem with bashing, 10% of it's actually justified, the rest is simply either someone heard half a story, and assumed the rest, or someone only tells half of it.

It would be like me saying the public are thick, lack common sense are self centered and only want law applied to everyone else. That's an attitude and lacking in a small majority, although actually maybe not the last one, but made up the vast majority of those who I dealt with as a Policeman. Would I say every member of the public is the same? No, of course not. So why presume, usually on shall we say a dodgy basis that 'The Police' are always at fault. Some individual Police Officers don't behave, most Police officers have made honest mistakes, we are human, but to say that all police are as described by Ms Blackmann is disingenuous at best.

This has been a good example, assumption that police should have thrown every ounce of crime scene investigation at a minor criminal damage, but no real understanding of what that would achieve, ie nothing. Yet the impression given by some has been that "The Police" are wrong not too. Hopefully, people now understand why everything isn't thrown at criminal damage/theft from cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top