I lived in Holland for a long time and was curious as to how the Dutch papers would report this so I had a look on 'tinternet today. They don't give the full name of the guy who's been charged, only his first name and initial of surname, and though they have published a photo, it is partially covered so he is not instantly recognisable.
I really do hope they have got the right guy, but at least in Holland, his face and every last detail of his life isn't being splattered across the front pages the way it is here. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
well yes, but your link was to an article that did not show that he might have done it, there was no content other than "he was arrested". I felt you were overstating his possible guilt.
Probably last seen before newspapers felt that they had to sensationalise everything. They are truly awful nowadays and have been for many years. Grrr!BTW what has happened to the phrase "helping the police with their enquiries
Indeed. And don't ever volunteer your DNA - if a crime happens anywhere you have been, don't be surprised if you get called in and end up on the front page of the Sun and vilifiedOne thought, if the media are covering an incident near were you live . Go and get a haircut
I expect anyone who declines an invitation to give a DNA sample will get arrested pretty soon afterwards. Of course once you're arrested they have the right to take a sample. If you refuse saliva or blood they'll just pluck a hair. One Bristol MP even wanted to DNA test every man in Bristol! Apparently it's been done before and 4500 men had their DNA taken.
Have we arrived in a police state? I'd go to prison for that just to prove the point.
Yes, she is a complete idiot. This is the MP who tweeted poll counts and could have got 6 months in prison. They let her off for some reason. Please explain any logic at all behind DNA sampling an enormous transient population? And would you pay for it knowing its likelihood of success is 0?. One Bristol MP even wanted to DNA test every man in Bristol!
Further to the 4500 people who had their DNA taken before for the other murder trail. The details are here but the important bit...So Frost, the murderer, was caught because he was a suspect already. The mass DNA screening of 4500 was a pointless waste of money.Police visited 10,500 homes during the investigation and also interviewed more than 14,800 people. DNA tests were carried out on 4,500 men. A sample was also requested from Frost, who had been staying at his parents' house for the Christmas holidays. He agreed, but did not turn up to an appointment, and then left for South Africa to take up a job with an engineering company.
Officers contacted him there and mouths swabs were eventually taken, which resulted in a close DNA match. Police travelled to South Africa to interview him, and he then returned to Britain, where he was arrested.
Yeah. It's free to say "I'm considering legal action" - blimey, everyone seems to say that phrase at the drop of a hat - but it costs money to actually do it.
I think it'd be quite difficult to go after the police for wrongful arrest - unless they genuinely had zero reason to suspect him and simply arrested him because he looked weird.
And I suspect Chris Jefferies would have far more luck going after the newspapers who printed any old rubbish about him - I think the McCanns did that, didn't they, and they won?
Jefferies would be far better off getting Max Clifford on the case; Clifford would get onto a reality show or something and make some dosh out of that.
According to Wikipedia the situation is different depending on whether you live in Scotland or England and Wales. In England and Wales the threshold for taking DNA has been progressively lowered. If you're arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence a sample will be taken and you'll be on the database. I'd guess that refusing to provide a sample might arouse some suspicion, such that you'd get arrested, at which point you can't decline.
I imagine the police were quite pleased at having got 4500 extra people onto their database in one go.
The police have blotted their copybook, so far as I am concerned, on the question of DNA sampling.
They are expressly forbidden from maintaining a DNA database. However, they do not destroy DNA data of those eliminated from enquiries, even after a conviction has been obtained.
Judges sitting in criminal cases have asserted (and this went up at least to the Court of Appeal and possibly the Lords Judicial Committee) that it is in the interests of justice to admit DNA evidence even if the police have obtained it, or retained it, unlawfully.
Since there is no incentive to comply with the requirement not to maintain a DNA database, the police continue to do so.
Consequently, and speaking personally, I should decline to provide a DNA sample in all and any circumstances.
Over a month later, he has not been discharged yet and is still on bail
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/...l/article.html
Last edited by philsmove; 24th-February-2011 at 10:45 AM.
If it emerges that he had no involvement in the crime the police will have a lot of egg on their face, and could be facing a large compensation claim.
I can't help wondering if the police might be looking through everything he said to them to see if he could be charged with wasting police time. I suppose that might help neutralise a compensation claim.
Is the person who has been charged on remand, or on bail?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks