Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

24 Hours in Police Custody?


Recommended Posts

HobnobGTi

I agree that I didn't like the way she was doing it either and wondered if it was playing to the cameras. As others have said it seemed she was offended and disgusted by the person she was interviewing, and while that is perfectly natural and I would be too, it did seem to affect the way she was carrying out the interview.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mazza

    11

  • bongo

    9

  • Chewie

    9

  • Razzman48

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As officers we have a obligation to accommodate everyones religious needs. A comment like that is obnoxious, ignorant and totally out of order.

I've never been so close to tears as arriving at custody dead on my planned finish time, getting in the queue and hearing the sentence "We're on handdover'

I had a chap start smashing the dvd recorder!!! "Interview concluded"

CountyCop

It's bizzar the whole attitude of the interviewing officers. They deal with that stuff day in and day out, they shouldn't really be that bothered by that material. It was quite tame compared to what they could have been dealing with.

From my own experiences of working with child abuse investigation officers, I can tell you they are extremely professional and dedicated. Not really what those two reflected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
andi

I was surprised she let her emotions show so much, I'd expect someone in that role to be able to remain impartial.

As it happens, the suspect was willing to talk quite freely anyway, but you could tell in his voice he was taken aback slightly by her questioning. In another interview, with another suspect, that could have had a big impact on his answers.

I'm not sure they let the legal advisor be in charge (if it's the bit I think you're referring to), rather her questioning strayed from the offences he had been arrested and was under investigation for.  From that perspective, the Legal Advisor was entitled to challenge her.  He was doing his job as unpalatable as that may be to some of us.  

 

It's up to her what questions she asks, not the legal advisor. She should have shut him down quicker and proceeded with the question, instead she ended up arguing and by the end pretty much backed down and almost told the suspect what to say. Also, a minor annoyance, but I really didn't like how the legal advisor just got up and walked out, telling them to leave the tape running. It's the police running the interview, he's there to observe and provide advice to his client.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mazza

I thought the second chap came across as if he were glad he'd finally been caught.

Link to post
Share on other sites
morek54

I was surprised she let her emotions show so much, I'd expect someone in that role to be able to remain impartial.

As it happens, the suspect was willing to talk quite freely anyway, but you could tell in his voice he was taken aback slightly by her questioning. In another interview, with another suspect, that could have had a big impact on his answers.

It's up to her what questions she asks, not the legal advisor. She should have shut him down quicker and proceeded with the question, instead she ended up arguing and by the end pretty much backed down and almost told the suspect what to say. Also, a minor annoyance, but I really didn't like how the legal advisor just got up and walked out, telling them to leave the tape running. It's the police running the interview, he's there to observe and provide advice to his client.

So are you saying you would ask someone questions in relation to separate issues, which they are not under arrest for?  Ok.  The purpose of the interview is to obtain evidence by questioning in relation to the offence or offences under investigation - not to get the suspect to incriminate themselves in relation to other undisclosed matters where the Police have no evidence pointing to that individuals involvement in such an offence; and for which the defendant isn't under arrest for.  Of course it's tempting when dealing with such offenders.  But, the reality is, what is the purpose of the interview?  I'm not sure what your experience is - but in my experience, I was pre-empting the challenge from the Solicitor.  And it duly came.  No Solicitor worth their salt would have allowed that line of questioning to continue without formally objecting.  The issue wasn't the Legal Advisor, or your assertion that he was running the interview, rather how the interview was being conducted.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now