GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #2

[Ellmau]

They wouldn't release names - but it's very unusual not to give ages and genders of persons arrested.

 

[Ellmau]

If a juvenile is charged, we wouldn't usually hear the name until after a conviction, I believe.

 

[Lola68]

They wouldn't release names - but it's very unusual not to give ages and genders of persons arrested.

Agree - it's almost unheard of not to release any information at all about the suspects, including applying for an extension. Also weird that there is nothing in the media - not even rumours - as to who they may be. I think the family know who's been arrested AND the media know but both have been told not to report it as it could compromise the investigation. I think the police - and media - have learned from the Joanna Yates case. The police had their prime suspect but needed to gather more evidence - it was convenient for them that the media speculated about the English professor as it diverted attention from the real murderer and left them free to continue their job. But it was clearly disastrous in terms of this poor man's reputation and neither the police nor the media came off well after it. JIMO

 

[Wallace]

Unless they suspect them of murder - or to be some how involved...

Sorry what do you mean?

 

[Cherwell]

Agree - it's almost unheard of not to release any information at all about the suspects, including applying for an extension. Also weird that there is nothing in the media - not even rumours - as to who they may be. I think the family know who's been arrested AND the media know but both have been told not to report it as it could compromise the investigation. I think the police - and media - have learned from the Joanna Yates case. The police had their prime suspect but needed to gather more evidence - it was convenient for them that the media speculated about the English professor as it diverted attention from the real murderer and left them free to continue their job. But it was clearly disastrous in terms of this poor man's reputation and neither the police nor the media came off well after it. JIMO

The police were not to blame at all there. CJ tried to sue them but had no case. They did have a reason to suspect him which was not widely reported, and were within their rights to bring him in for questioning while the evidence was investigated. I don't think they were using him as a smokescreen. There is no excuse for what the gutter press did though, that was disgraceful but not the fault of the police.

 

[edgedweller]

I really wanted to see that TV drama that they made about CJ (Jo Yeates' landlord) but totally missed it
That was the case that I became addicted to Websleuths....

 

[Wallace]

The police were not to blame at all there. CJ tried to sue them but had no case. They did have a reason to suspect him which was not widely reported, and were within their rights to bring him in for questioning while the evidence was investigated. I don't think they were using him as a smokescreen. There is no excuse for what the gutter press did though, that was disgraceful but not the fault of the police.

Completely correct, the only thing that the Police apologised for was not making it clear that CJ was no longer a suspect at the earliest possible moment. They said he had already suffered enough and that once Tabak was charged they could have cancelled his Police bail earlier to reduce his suffering.

It was the media that made the connection to CJ and then started to destroy his character. Admittedly he was not hard to find but that was not his fault he was caught right in the middle of the investigation due to circumstance and nothing else.

 

[Lola68]

The police were not to blame at all there. CJ tried to sue them but had no case. They did have a reason to suspect him which was not widely reported, and were within their rights to bring him in for questioning while the evidence was investigated. I don't think they were using him as a smokescreen. There is no excuse for what the gutter press did though, that was disgraceful but not the fault of the police.

Thanks. I agree, the fault lay with the media not the police, but (if my memory is correct - and I'm fully prepared that it isn't!), I thought that after they held CJ for 3 days, the police didn't publicly confirm or deny whether CJ was still a suspect? Or maybe they did, but it wasn't convenient for the media to report it.

 

[Wallace]

Thanks. I agree, the fault lay with the media not the police, but (if my memory is correct - and I'm fully prepared that it isn't!), I thought that after they held CJ for 3 days, the police didn't publicly confirm or deny whether CJ was still a suspect? Or maybe they did, but it wasn't convenient for the media to report it.

CJ was held on Police bail until March (roughly three months after the initial arrest).

 

[Wallace]

Unless they suspect them of murder - or to be some how involved...

Please can you explain this statement, it makes no sense.

 

[Lola68]

Sorry what do you mean?

TBH I didn't understand your comment "It's unlikely they would use up the entire 96 hours in one go." I thought that if they strongly suspected someone of a serious crime such as murder, they wouldn't want to let them out of custody in between questioning, in case they did a runner. But I admit I don't know much about the custody rule - can you bring someone in more than once without charge as long as the total time in custody is <24 hours?

 

[Cherwell]

I really wanted to see that TV drama that they made about CJ (Jo Yeates' landlord) but totally missed it
That was the case that I became addicted to Websleuths....

You can watch it here if the link still works.

 

[Lola68]

CJ was held on Police bail until March (roughly three months after the initial arrest).

I think keeping people on bail is really damaging when someone is innocent because you can't help but question why they are still on bail - i.e. surely not down to backlog in paperwork?? The same thing happened with Tia Sharp's grandmother - I doubt she'll ever be able to properly clear her name

 

[edgedweller]

You can watch it here if the link still works.

Thanks so much for that - I'm really tempted to watch it now but it's a school night Tomorrow!

A friend of my friend worked in the same office as Vincent Tabak and he rang her the morning VT was arrested as the whole office was closed, police taking away computers etc, and all the workers had to wait in the canteen. He also told her that VT hadn't turned up for work... VT had talked about the case at work, in a vague manner.

 

[Wallace]

TBH I didn't understand your comment "It's unlikely they would use up the entire 96 hours in one go." I thought that if they strongly suspected someone of a serious crime such as murder, they wouldn't want to let them out of custody in between questioning, in case they did a runner. But I admit I don't know much about the custody rule - can you bring someone in more than once without charge as long as the total time in custody is <24 hours?

96 hours is the total time that they can possibly interview a suspect. After that they cannot interview them any more in relation to the crime they were arrested for. It's cumulative so if they keep bringing someone back into custody they still only get a total of 96 hours. They couldn't arrest someone and keep them for 24 hours then release them and keep doing that over and over again as if starting from zero each time. If they did that 4 times they would no longer be allowed to talk to the suspect about the crime.

If they don't have enough evidence to charge them they will usually make sure they have some of that interview time left so that they can bring them back in for further questioning So that is why they are unlikely to use all 96 hours in one go.

 

[Wallace]

I think keeping people on bail is really damaging when someone is innocent because you can't help but question why they are still on bail - i.e. surely not down to backlog in paperwork?? The same thing happened with Tia Sharp's grandmother - I doubt she'll ever be able to properly clear her name

The law on the amount of time a suspect can be kept on Police bail is under review. There is currently no limit. New proposals will mean that the Police will need to justify the duration. All parties agree that there should be restrictions. It is just the mechanism for managing the duration that needs to be agreed. Changes should come into force this year.

 

[RapunzelUK]

Silly idea...

 

[Wallace]

Silly idea...

?????

 

[rosesfromangels]

Maybe Becky did leave her home, maybe she went to the boyfriends house as he wasn't answering her texts (he was at dentist) Maybe she was hanging around outside his house, Knocking on door etc maybe someone who lives in same street as boyfriend saw her and took their opportunity?

If I had to *guess*, she probably met up with someone she didn't know...except for meeting them online. A predator's candy shop. Children should never ever ever be online without parents tracking their activity. It's like leaving your child alone at home with the front door unlocked knowing there is a house full of RSO's living next door.

 

[Sutton]

96 hours is the total time that they can possibly interview a suspect. After that they cannot interview them any more in relation to the crime they were arrested for. It's cumulative so if they keep bringing someone back into custody they still only get a total of 96 hours. They couldn't arrest someone and keep them for 24 hours then release them and keep doing that over and over again as if starting from zero each time. If they did that 4 times they would no longer be allowed to talk to the suspect about the crime.

If they don't have enough evidence to charge them they will usually make sure they have some of that interview time left so that they can bring them back in for further questioning So that is why they are unlikely to use all 96 hours in one go.

Wow, I had no idea England's system was so different from the U.S. System. So are you saying:
The police can arrest someone without charging them with a crime.
The police can interview them for up to 96 hours (after an extension is granted).
After 96 hours, the police must either release them or charge them.
At any point before the 96 hours, the police can release them (as in, realize they arrested wrong person), release them on bail, or charge them.
The police can use the entire 96 hours by re-arresting and continuing to interview, or by interviewing after charging.
At no point (under current laws), can the interviews extend past 96 hours.
Is that correct?
Can they ask for an attorney at any point in time?
And also, the arrested suspect can just choose not to talk at all or answer any questions during the interview, correct (I mean obviously they can, but is there any deterrent)?