On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:44 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>> The onus is upon the police to show guilt, not the accused to prove
>> innocence.  The police and their apologists are always forgetting that
>> one basic fact - a fact that is the very cornerstone of our criminal
>> justice system.

>So busmen involved in accidents should just sit there and refuse to say 
>anything?

In many cases that is absolutely right, yes.  The bus driver cannot be
convicted unless there is clear evidence that shows that s/he is
guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.  I am extremely surprised
that you didn't know that fact.

Think about it a second.  There is no reason to believe a driver who
claims that it was not his fault - he may simply be lying because it
is in his interests to do so.  So anything the driver says to the
police that would go toward his innocence would be disregarded unless
it is supported by evidence.  And if it is supported by evidence, then
that evidence would stand by itself without any input from the driver.

OTOH, an innocent driver or witnesses may easily misremember a few
inconsequential details so the evidence or witnesses contradict the
driver's statement.  The police would pounce on anything the driver
says that can be proven to be wrong, and accuse the driver of lying -
and evidence of apparent dishonesty *could* swing the case against
him.

>> "This person has some money, we don't know where it came from and he
>> won't tell us.," is *not* evidence of guilt by any stretch of the
>> imagination.

>It can certainly be taken as evidence in part.  As you know, inference can 
>be drawn from refusal to answer questions in a Police interview.

Inference can be drawn *only* if there is sufficient evidence to prove
guilt BRD and *and* the defendant has an innocent explanation for that
evidence that they would reasonably have been expected to have
provided to the police at the start.  And even that is only if the
suspect has been interviewed under caution - and I have no idea if
that happens in the case of confiscation of assets (which is not a
criminal prosecution).

If the first criteria is not met (i.e. there is not insufficient
evidence to prove guilt BRD), then the silence means nothing, and
cannot be used.

>If there is other evidence of wrongdoing, such as a quantity of drugs in the 
>house, statements from witnesses, past history etc, then a quanity of cash 
>for which the person is unable or unwilling to account for could well be the 
>procedes of crime.

*If* there is sufficient concrete evidence that it might be able to
prove guilt BRD, then it would be advisable for the accused to provide
any innocent explanation that might exist at an early date.  But if
the police have not shown the accused that they have sufficient
evidence to prove guilt, then IMO the accused is well advised to say
nothing whatsoever - because there is nothing for the accused to
refute!

In the case in question there was nowhere near sufficient evidence to
prove guilt, even on balance of probability.  The only two facts
AFAIAA were that there was cash in the house and that a family member
who was not living in the house had once been convicted of a drugs
offence.

>> Any system wherein the people are not at risk of being punished for
>> mistakes *will* develop such a policy.  It is simple psychology.

>How do you know people aren't at risk of being punished?  The Police may 
>well deal with earrant officer's themselves. 

The evidence suggests otherwise.  After the mistake that resulted in
the death of deMenezes, the police even *praised* some of the officers
concerned.  Sickening.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:67nue49v794fcfct5khunimv0tnjie63un@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:44 +0100, "mert1639"
>  wrote:
>
>>> The onus is upon the police to show guilt, not the accused to prove
>>> innocence.  The police and their apologists are always forgetting that
>>> one basic fact - a fact that is the very cornerstone of our criminal
>>> justice system.
>
>>So busmen involved in accidents should just sit there and refuse to say
>>anything?
>
> In many cases that is absolutely right, yes.  The bus driver cannot be
> convicted unless there is clear evidence that shows that s/he is
> guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.  I am extremely surprised
> that you didn't know that fact.
>
I did know that, yes.
However I also know that drivers involved in RTCs do normally say something 
to explain the accident.

> Think about it a second.  There is no reason to believe a driver who
> claims that it was not his fault - he may simply be lying because it
> is in his interests to do so.  So anything the driver says to the
> police that would go toward his innocence would be disregarded unless
> it is supported by evidence.  And if it is supported by evidence, then
> that evidence would stand by itself without any input from the driver.
>
But he might say that the dead man had steped out in front of the bus and 
that there was a witness.  The Police wouldn't know there was such a witness 
until the driver told him.

> OTOH, an innocent driver or witnesses may easily misremember a few
> inconsequential details so the evidence or witnesses contradict the
> driver's statement.  The police would pounce on anything the driver
> says that can be proven to be wrong, and accuse the driver of lying -
> and evidence of apparent dishonesty *could* swing the case against
> him.
>
I agree, which is my adviced would be needed.
If someone stepped out in front of my car I wouldn't make a statement until 
I'd seen a solicitor.

>>> "This person has some money, we don't know where it came from and he
>>> won't tell us.," is *not* evidence of guilt by any stretch of the
>>> imagination.
>
>>It can certainly be taken as evidence in part.  As you know, inference can
>>be drawn from refusal to answer questions in a Police interview.
>
> Inference can be drawn *only* if there is sufficient evidence to prove
> guilt BRD and *and* the defendant has an innocent explanation for that
> evidence that they would reasonably have been expected to have
> provided to the police at the start.  And even that is only if the
> suspect has been interviewed under caution - and I have no idea if
> that happens in the case of confiscation of assets (which is not a
> criminal prosecution).
>
In the case of seizing cash it must be nearly impossible to prove BRD where 
it came from, especially if the suspect isn't giving anything away.

> If the first criteria is not met (i.e. there is not insufficient
> evidence to prove guilt BRD), then the silence means nothing, and
> cannot be used.
>
I didn't know that.  Thanks.

>>If there is other evidence of wrongdoing, such as a quantity of drugs in 
>>the
>>house, statements from witnesses, past history etc, then a quanity of cash
>>for which the person is unable or unwilling to account for could well be 
>>the
>>procedes of crime.
>
> *If* there is sufficient concrete evidence that it might be able to
> prove guilt BRD, then it would be advisable for the accused to provide
> any innocent explanation that might exist at an early date.  But if
> the police have not shown the accused that they have sufficient
> evidence to prove guilt, then IMO the accused is well advised to say
> nothing whatsoever - because there is nothing for the accused to
> refute!
>
How would the accused be in a position to decide that?  They will be mislead 
by the Police.

> In the case in question there was nowhere near sufficient evidence to
> prove guilt, even on balance of probability.  The only two facts
> AFAIAA were that there was cash in the house and that a family member
> who was not living in the house had once been convicted of a drugs
> offence.
>
The Police than asked them to account for it and the father did (it came 
from a compensation payout).

>>> Any system wherein the people are not at risk of being punished for
>>> mistakes *will* develop such a policy.  It is simple psychology.
>
>>How do you know people aren't at risk of being punished?  The Police may
>>well deal with earrant officer's themselves.
>
> The evidence suggests otherwise.  After the mistake that resulted in
> the death of deMenezes, the police even *praised* some of the officers
> concerned.  Sickening.
>
You won't hear me argue with that.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:31:00 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>> Think about it a second.  There is no reason to believe a driver who
>> claims that it was not his fault - he may simply be lying because it
>> is in his interests to do so.  So anything the driver says to the
>> police that would go toward his innocence would be disregarded unless
>> it is supported by evidence.  And if it is supported by evidence, then
>> that evidence would stand by itself without any input from the driver.

>But he might say that the dead man had steped out in front of the bus and 
>that there was a witness.  The Police wouldn't know there was such a witness 
>until the driver told him.

*Very* dangerous.  The driver tells the police that there is a witness
without having the slightest idea what the witness might say to the
police or how the witness might be questioned.  Maybe the witness
didn't see as much as the driver thought he saw and under questioning
"fills in the missing gaps."  Maybe the witness wants to save the dead
man's family distress by downplaying the pedestrian's culpability.
Maybe the witness feels that because the poor pedestrian is a mangled
bloody mess and the driver is perfectly OK, the driver deserves
punishment.

Some people like to be "helpful" to the police by giving the answers
that they believe are wanted.  The police sometimes play on that
well-known fact by supplying hints as to the answers they would like
to get.  Remember that a witness interview is not recorded - you will
get to see only a witness statement that was composed and written by a
policeman and signed by the witness.  It will thus contain only the
parts of what the witness said that the policeman wants it to contain.

Once a witness has signed a police statement, you will find that their
story becomes reinforced and unshakable.  Even if they decide to
retract it later, the police have been known to threaten them with
perjury (it is a crime to give a false statement to the police).

*Far* better to have your solicitor track down the witness if
possible, and get a heads-up on what he is going to say before telling
the police anything about a witness - and if the witness *does* turn
out to be damaging, no need to take it any further.  And with your
solicitor asking the witness questions, the "tell him what he wants to
hear" effect will act in your favour.

>In the case of seizing cash it must be nearly impossible to prove BRD where 
>it came from, especially if the suspect isn't giving anything away.

If it is not possible to prove BRD where it came from, then it should
not be seized, end of story.  It is the way the criminal justice
system is meant to work - better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1
innocent to be wrongly convicted.

>> *If* there is sufficient concrete evidence that it might be able to
>> prove guilt BRD, then it would be advisable for the accused to provide
>> any innocent explanation that might exist at an early date.  But if
>> the police have not shown the accused that they have sufficient
>> evidence to prove guilt, then IMO the accused is well advised to say
>> nothing whatsoever - because there is nothing for the accused to
>> refute!

>How would the accused be in a position to decide that?  They will be mislead 
>by the Police.

Fine.  If the police do not present the suspect with evidence of his
guilt, then the suspect has nothing that he needs to refute, and so
his silence cannot be held against him.  Nobody can expect you to
refute something that you do not know exists!

>> In the case in question there was nowhere near sufficient evidence to
>> prove guilt, even on balance of probability.  The only two facts
>> AFAIAA were that there was cash in the house and that a family member
>> who was not living in the house had once been convicted of a drugs
>> offence.

>The Police than asked them to account for it and the father did (it came 
>from a compensation payout).

But they still confiscated it, presumably on the grounds that the
father was lying.  So as I said, saying anything to the police usually
does a suspect no good whatsoever.  It will either be incriminating
(or twisted that way) and help convict you, or the police will assume
that it is a lie.

-- 
Cynic