From http://www.miscarriageofjustice.org/
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 regardingŠŠ" 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 endŠ. won't it? But then, after all this softly, softly introduction, and after the form is signed, the officer states, "OK, in fairnessŠ it's a procedural thingŠ 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
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Former Jurors Can Speak!
It is illegal in this country to approach anyone who has served on a jury and ask them questions about how they came to their verdict. It is not, however, illegal for people who have served on a jury to talk about their experiences after the event.
Given that so many jury decisions seem to fly in the face of the evidence before them, the only way these decisions can be studied, and the underlying reasons for such strange decisions identified, is if people voluntarily discuss their experiences.
Any study of the causes of wrongful convictions must, of necessity, remain incomplete when researchers are forbidden to approach jurors, and also when police officers, people working in the CPS, etc, are unable to discuss their concerns for fear of losing their jobs, or breaking rules of "confidentiality."
Any researcher, myself included, can accept information which is voluntarily offered, and can, and will, assure anonymity for those who are willing to offer such information.Without it, we can never truly understand how our criminal justice system gets it so wrong, so often.
Also, our current system means there is no support or assistance for people who have served on a jury which has wrongfully convicted someone, when that conviction is overturned, or for people who have worked on an obviously flawed case. It's not hard to imagine how people must feel, discovering that they were duped into believing they were hearing "all of the evidence," or that they assisted in locking up a completely innocent person, yet all we can do is imagine, because, once again, we have no means of asking directly. Only if people in that position willingly and voluntarily discuss their feelings do we have any real way of knowing.
by Sandra Lean - August 2008
End of Bulletin
Source for this message:
http://www.miscarriageofjustice.org/
Contact sandra@miscarriageofjustice.org
I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
