Found Deceased UK - Lindsay Birbeck, 47, Accrington, 12 Aug 2019 *Arrest* #3

[Alyce]

So, a very short week. Full day Tuesday, one hour Wednesday and - hopefully - a full day tomorrow.
No chance for Defence to begin until next week for sure.

 

[Angleterre]

This isn't stacking up with the headteacher's evidence.

Examples -

He then asked: "Would you say that people who had worked with him over a number of years had never had a proper conversation with him"

She replied: "Yes"

She told the jury his language abilities were limited and he was unable to communicate properly.

"You always had to speak to him, and you would get one or two word answers from him.



Who wrote his statement and how did they get the information from him? It's important to me to know, from a credibility point of view, if he said "I am not sure of his height, build or age", or if these were separate questions put to him to which he answered no, or if someone like a family member could have written it for him and could have constructed the whole defence. I wonder if @Angleterre might be able to assist with any of these possibilities, once a suspect is in custody.

moo

@Tortoise
This is a’prepared’ statement
I don’t mean to teach you to suck eggs but if I may, I will explain the procedure upon arrest so that it’s clear for everyone to follow because I am aware that a lot of WS members are not from the UK and therefore aren’t used to the procedures in the U.K.

So, upon arrest RM would have been given his rights and these would have been done in the presence of an appropriate adult, not involved in the investigation ( if not his parents or siblings over 18, then social services will send someone out to act in this capacity) . He will be cautioned at the time of arrest and then again at the start of his recorded interview.
Prior to his interview, he would have had a consultation with his legal representative.
Now the caution is as follows:
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court and anything you do say may be given in evidence.
So the importance of this part :
But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
Basically this is to stop the accused saying NO COMMENT in interviews and then going away and constructing a story around what evidence has been disclosed by the police during interviews. In essence, giving them time to go away and make up a set of circumstances so that they can explain away their actions at the time of the crime and minimising their actions or making themselves seem innocent.
So the part that says it may harm your defence’ means that as a result of you not answering or not answering satisfactory answers that a judge may draw an inference from your refusal to answer the questions posed during interviews and that inference could be one of guilt .
So to get around that inference being drawn, it’s becoming much more prevalent for solicitors to provide a ‘prepared statement ‘.
The purpose of this statement is to negate any inference being drawn because technically the accused has not refused to answer questions during interviews but it is also purposefully vague so that the accused is not tying himself into any real account so that it can be explained away at court when it comes to trial... thus enabling him to give much greater explanations that answer his role in and around the evidence presented by the prosecution. Cynics would say that it is a clever way of ensuring that he is still able to come up with a crock of lies to fit the prosecution theory but without any inference being drawn.
So the ‘prepared statement ‘ is written, after the police disclosure to the accused and his solicitor, but before the interview commences. Once the interview does commence and RM is asked questions, each time his solicitor will say -
“I refer to the prepared statement given “ and this means that RM doesn’t actually speak or cooperate throughout the whole interview stage .
The prepared statement is written by his solicitor based upon whatever RM has told him and whatever has been suggested by the solicitor to RM to add to the prepared statement. So now it is obvious that whatever is in that prepared statement given, is not the words of RM as he can’t string together a sentence like is written in this prepared statement. So the solicitor will then merely say that he wrote it all based upon how RM described things even though it was one word answers.
It’s sad but it’s all geared toward the accused and not the victim.
Hope this helps ... any more questions just ask...
Edited to add: the prepared statement will fit the circumstances and the evidence known because prior to the solicitor having done this statement with RM, the police would have done their full disclosure of all the facts known. If they don’t and during interview, something comes up that hasn’t been previously disclosed, then the solicitor will stop the interview to enable him to discuss this latest disclosure with his client and this will happen each and every time that anything is asked in interviews by police that RMs solicitor feels that it wasn’t fully disclosed prior to interview. Unfortunately, with the disclosure act and transparency rules , you virtually have to disclose your full hand of information now before the interview begins ( a bit like telling everyone what cards you have been dealt in poker - yup , what’s the point?)

 

[Alyce]

@Angleterre - might be good to remove those initials

 

[Angleterre]

@Angleterre - might be good to remove those initials

Can I ask why ? Throughout the initial thread he was referred to as RM
Is this no longer allowed?
I’m being genuine in my question btw

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks @Angleterre

I'll be more specific with my question about his statement. I don't think the solicitor can have pieced together the circumstances of the crime or narrative from one word answers to questions. That would mean he would have to have been asked questions like - was the body you moved located in an area off Burnley Road? Did you first hide the body?

Do you see what I mean? The statement contains more than merely answers to obvious questions, suggesting the questioner/solicitor already had knowledge to ask.

 

[Angleterre]

Thanks @Angleterre

I'll be more specific with my question about his statement. I don't think the solicitor can have pieced together the circumstances of the crime or narrative from one word answers to questions. That would mean he would have to have been asked questions like - was the body you moved located in an area off Burnley Road? Did you first hide the body?

Do you see what I mean? The statement contains more than merely answers to obvious questions, suggesting the questioner/solicitor already had knowledge to ask.

Yes the solicitor had knowledge to ask because of the police disclosure
Police would have had to tell the solicitor everything they had that implicated his client.
And from that, the solicitor would have bombarded the accused with questions, helped by the appropriate adult to understand the accused responses , until he was able to piece together enough to write a prepared statement. This could have taken hours - I have had cases where the solicitor is in with his client for 4 hours prior to interview...
So effectively he knew what to write because the police disclosed it all for him to then go away and work some form of defence around it

 

[Tortoise]

Yes the solicitor had knowledge to ask because of the police disclosure
Police would have had to tell the solicitor everything they had that implicated his client.
And from that, the solicitor would have bombarded the accused with questions, helped by the appropriate adult to understand the accused responses , until he was able to piece together enough to write a prepared statement. This could have taken hours - I have had cases where the solicitor is in with his client for 4 hours prior to interview...
So effectively he knew what to write because the police disclosed it all for him to then go away and work some form of defence around it

Hmm, I'm not sure all that information came from police disclosure. They wouldn't have known he was offered a large sum of money for example, or that he was approached by anyone and asked to hide a body. That sounds like feeding if so. I'm inclined to suspect this defence was crafted for him by a family member. I'd be surprised if they had developed much evidence by that stage, or had forensics back. I could be wrong.

 

[Rosegold68]

preston crown court have his full name listed again today......his name is public now so a few initials on some website are of no consequence really

 

[Rosegold68]

maybe his appropriate adult was the hooded stranger....he would be unable to speak out in his presence

 

[Kaykedi]

@Tortoise
This is a’prepared’ statement
I don’t mean to teach you to suck eggs but if I may, I will explain the procedure upon arrest so that it’s clear for everyone to follow because I am aware that a lot of WS members are not from the UK and therefore aren’t used to the procedures in the U.K.

So, upon arrest RM would have been given his rights and these would have been done in the presence of an appropriate adult, not involved in the investigation ( if not his parents or siblings over 18, then social services will send someone out to act in this capacity) . He will be cautioned at the time of arrest and then again at the start of his recorded interview.
Prior to his interview, he would have had a consultation with his legal representative.
Now the caution is as follows:
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court and anything you do say may be given in evidence.
So the importance of this part :
But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
Basically this is to stop the accused saying NO COMMENT in interviews and then going away and constructing a story around what evidence has been disclosed by the police during interviews. In essence, giving them time to go away and make up a set of circumstances so that they can explain away their actions at the time of the crime and minimising their actions or making themselves seem innocent.
So the part that says it may harm your defence’ means that as a result of you not answering or not answering satisfactory answers that a judge may draw an inference from your refusal to answer the questions posed during interviews and that inference could be one of guilt .
So to get around that inference being drawn, it’s becoming much more prevalent for solicitors to provide a ‘prepared statement ‘.
The purpose of this statement is to negate any inference being drawn because technically the accused has not refused to answer questions during interviews but it is also purposefully vague so that the accused is not tying himself into any real account so that it can be explained away at court when it comes to trial... thus enabling him to give much greater explanations that answer his role in and around the evidence presented by the prosecution. Cynics would say that it is a clever way of ensuring that he is still able to come up with a crock of lies to fit the prosecution theory but without any inference being drawn.
So the ‘prepared statement ‘ is written, after the police disclosure to the accused and his solicitor, but before the interview commences. Once the interview does commence and RM is asked questions, each time his solicitor will say -
“I refer to the prepared statement given “ and this means that RM doesn’t actually speak or cooperate throughout the whole interview stage .
The prepared statement is written by his solicitor based upon whatever RM has told him and whatever has been suggested by the solicitor to RM to add to the prepared statement. So now it is obvious that whatever is in that prepared statement given, is not the words of RM as he can’t string together a sentence like is written in this prepared statement. So the solicitor will then merely say that he wrote it all based upon how RM described things even though it was one word answers.
It’s sad but it’s all geared toward the accused and not the victim.
Hope this helps ... any more questions just ask...
Edited to add: the prepared statement will fit the circumstances and the evidence known because prior to the solicitor having done this statement with RM, the police would have done their full disclosure of all the facts known. If they don’t and during interview, something comes up that hasn’t been previously disclosed, then the solicitor will stop the interview to enable him to discuss this latest disclosure with his client and this will happen each and every time that anything is asked in interviews by police that RMs solicitor feels that it wasn’t fully disclosed prior to interview. Unfortunately, with the disclosure act and transparency rules , you virtually have to disclose your full hand of information now before the interview begins ( a bit like telling everyone what cards you have been dealt in poker - yup , what’s the point?)

Excellent, thank you Angleterre

 

[Angleterre]

Excellent, thank you Angleterre

You are welcome

 

[Mind your biscuits]

@Tortoise
This is a’prepared’ statement
I don’t mean to teach you to suck eggs but if I may, I will explain the procedure upon arrest so that it’s clear for everyone to follow because I am aware that a lot of WS members are not from the UK and therefore aren’t used to the procedures in the U.K.

So, upon arrest RM would have been given his rights and these would have been done in the presence of an appropriate adult, not involved in the investigation ( if not his parents or siblings over 18, then social services will send someone out to act in this capacity) . He will be cautioned at the time of arrest and then again at the start of his recorded interview.
Prior to his interview, he would have had a consultation with his legal representative.
Now the caution is as follows:
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court and anything you do say may be given in evidence.
So the importance of this part :
But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
Basically this is to stop the accused saying NO COMMENT in interviews and then going away and constructing a story around what evidence has been disclosed by the police during interviews. In essence, giving them time to go away and make up a set of circumstances so that they can explain away their actions at the time of the crime and minimising their actions or making themselves seem innocent.
So the part that says it may harm your defence’ means that as a result of you not answering or not answering satisfactory answers that a judge may draw an inference from your refusal to answer the questions posed during interviews and that inference could be one of guilt .
So to get around that inference being drawn, it’s becoming much more prevalent for solicitors to provide a ‘prepared statement ‘.
The purpose of this statement is to negate any inference being drawn because technically the accused has not refused to answer questions during interviews but it is also purposefully vague so that the accused is not tying himself into any real account so that it can be explained away at court when it comes to trial... thus enabling him to give much greater explanations that answer his role in and around the evidence presented by the prosecution. Cynics would say that it is a clever way of ensuring that he is still able to come up with a crock of lies to fit the prosecution theory but without any inference being drawn.
So the ‘prepared statement ‘ is written, after the police disclosure to the accused and his solicitor, but before the interview commences. Once the interview does commence and RM is asked questions, each time his solicitor will say -
“I refer to the prepared statement given “ and this means that RM doesn’t actually speak or cooperate throughout the whole interview stage .
The prepared statement is written by his solicitor based upon whatever RM has told him and whatever has been suggested by the solicitor to RM to add to the prepared statement. So now it is obvious that whatever is in that prepared statement given, is not the words of RM as he can’t string together a sentence like is written in this prepared statement. So the solicitor will then merely say that he wrote it all based upon how RM described things even though it was one word answers.
It’s sad but it’s all geared toward the accused and not the victim.
Hope this helps ... any more questions just ask...
Edited to add: the prepared statement will fit the circumstances and the evidence known because prior to the solicitor having done this statement with RM, the police would have done their full disclosure of all the facts known. If they don’t and during interview, something comes up that hasn’t been previously disclosed, then the solicitor will stop the interview to enable him to discuss this latest disclosure with his client and this will happen each and every time that anything is asked in interviews by police that RMs solicitor feels that it wasn’t fully disclosed prior to interview. Unfortunately, with the disclosure act and transparency rules , you virtually have to disclose your full hand of information now before the interview begins ( a bit like telling everyone what cards you have been dealt in poker - yup , what’s the point?)

What a load of rubbish (not your comments, the law). How does anyone ever get convicted of anything if they know what evidence the police have before making their statement? Moo

 

[Ann Blyth]

What a load of rubbish (not your comments, the law). How does anyone ever get convicted of anything if they know what evidence the police have before making their statement? Moo

Only some information is given in pre interview disclosure, some is withheld by the police so that they can test the accused’s truthfulness during the interview. In my experience.

 

[Angleterre]

Hmm, I'm not sure all that information came from police disclosure. They wouldn't have known he was offered a large sum of money for example, or that he was approached by anyone and asked to hide a body. That sounds like feeding if so. I'm inclined to suspect this defence was crafted for him by a family member. I'd be surprised if they had developed much evidence by that stage, or had forensics back. I could be wrong.

The accused would have had things ‘suggested ‘ to him and then this would have been added to the prepared statement
The time difference between the body found and the accused arrest would have given the police a lot of time to look into everything and if they suspected one iota that a member of his family who was also now acting as appropriate adult was involved, they would not have let them perform the appropriate adult role
I understand your concerns and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but can I just say that I was a detective for 22 years and I was a SIO senior investigating officer who was in charge of the team of investigators when investigating offences of murder- and I have been involved in and investigated and been in charge of investigating ‘many’. So it really is of no real concern to me and although I understand what you are saying, I really don’t feel that it is of any consequence because the prepared statement can be explained away as I have tried to do so and with all due respect to you, I do have a lot of experience in this field . But I respect your opinion and post .

 

[Rosegold68]

so....how have the police failed to find the murder scene? thoughts?

 

[Angleterre]

What a load of rubbish (not your comments, the law). How does anyone ever get convicted of anything if they know what evidence the police have before making their statement? Moo

Only some information is given in pre interview disclosure, some is withheld by the police so that they can test the accused’s truthfulness during the interview. In my experience.

Yes you are correct but if it is anything of importance, then any good solicitor will stop the interview for further consultation and I have had this happen to me many times when disclosure first came about and we were trying to navigate the new rules and I have seen it happen many times during downstream monitoring. It’s a balancing act but at the end of the day, more trials now are about the procedures as opposed to just the evidence and SIOs are getting hauled over the coals time and time again now for procedure and it’s getting to the point where it’s not worth losing a case over so it’s better to be as transparent as you can get away with and if it means disclosing everything ( within reason) then so be it. For eg if it is a DNA hit , you would have to disclose that the evidence is of a forensic nature but don’t have to say the where etc

 

[Angleterre]

so....how have the police failed to find the murder scene? thoughts?

I have to say that without knowing the whole in and out of the case , I cannot really offer an opinion on that but I am stumped by it and that’s all the comment I really want to make about it as otherwise I will get myself in trouble...

 

[Ann Blyth]

Yes you are correct but if it is anything of importance, then any good solicitor will stop the interview for further consultation and I have had this happen to me many times when disclosure first came about and we were trying to navigate the new rules and I have seen it happen many times during downstream monitoring. It’s a balancing act but at the end of the day, more trials now are about the procedures as opposed to just the evidence and SIOs are getting hauled over the coals time and time again now for procedure and it’s getting to the point where it’s not worth losing a case over so it’s better to be as transparent as you can get away with and if it means disclosing everything ( within reason) then so be it. For eg if it is a DNA hit , you would have to disclose that the evidence is of a forensic nature but don’t have to say the where etc

Absolutely spot on with your narrative, perfect explanation, and completely agree, criminal law from both sides is more about following procedure and volumes of paperwork.

 

[Angleterre]

What a load of rubbish (not your comments, the law). How does anyone ever get convicted of anything if they know what evidence the police have before making their statement? Moo

Yes I understand what you are saying
Some information can be held back to test truthfulness but in the main , any evidence of real importance would have to be disclosed although there are ways to disclose and you can be cute about it but it’s not worth playing games for

 

[MusicalMonkey]

Public gallery was full due to reserved seating for family.

I understand that family members need to be accommodated. But it seems like it's a Public Gallery where no members of the public can attend.