Janner --- Why was the case screwed up? The real reason !

[johncar54]

Why was the case screwed up ?

Until about 30 years ago in the Met police when a person transferred to the CID, which was completely controlled and managed by career detectives, if suitable they stayed in the CID for the remainder of there service. However, about 30 years ago, some idiot in his wisdom decided that the CID should become part of the mainstream police service (affectionately and often for good reason, known as 'the wooden tops). From then on when a CID officer was promoted, they were required to spend a year or so in a uniform department, local police station, traffic, courts etc. After a while they could then apply to return to the CID, until they were promoted again and once more back to uniform.

The effect was that instead of a CID officer being a professional detective, gaining more and more experience and knowledge of criminal investigation, they had ‘holes’ in their experience and knowledge. Thus when they came to investigate a complicated crime they were totally out of their depth and were, not through their own fault, incompetent. Thus like the Stephen Lawrence case, in Eltham, they were investigated incompetently, with the result that either there was insufficient evidence obtained, the strict rules of investigation required to support a trial were not followed and so cases either were not prosecuted, collapsed or dismissed on appeal.

The reason for these failures was not caused by corruption, racist attitudes etc. which are popularly blamed, and thus very conveniently take the blame away from 'the system' which in reality was the real failure.-

Until the Met return to having professional detectives things will get worse, believe me I know.

The system at present is akin to a GP who has a wonderful record of treating patients being told that as from tomorrow he is going to be a brain surgeon. The outcome of course would be that many of his patients would die, as he would be incompetent to that job for which he had not been trained nor had the experience for.

The County forces have for many years operated the transfer back to uniform on promotion system, however, that was compensated for in that all the county forces could call in the professional investigators from Scotland Yard. Of course there are now no professional detectives to call on and cases fail.

I do not know who the officer or officers were who failed to progress the allegations against Janner but for certain it would have been a ‘wooden top’ expert and not a professional detective as they are an extinct species.

PS I just saw that the idiots who (dis) organise the police services want to 'employ' 7,000 volunteers, instead of recruiting, training and retaining real police officers.

If it was not so sad it would be hilarious.

Maybe the next move will be to sack all officers and have just volunteers, but of course with senior officers or Gov ministers maybe, on high pay to disorganise them too. !

[bigmarco]

The reason for these failures was not caused by corruption, racist attitudes etc. which are popularly blamed, and thus very conveniently take the blame away from 'the system' which in reality was the real failure

.

Interesting read John although I disagree.
There's been far to many missed opportunities involving Establishment figures to suggest anything other than a mass cover up. The list is endless and the details don't emerge until they're dead or on deaths doorstep.
You highlighted the Lawrence investigation and go on to say that the failings were not due to corruption or Racist attitudes within the Met . I assume you disagree with the findings of the MacPherson report which I believe cited these reasons.

[johncar54]

Bigmarco, What you believe, from what you read here and there in newspaper etc and axe grinding TV programs, who have an agenda, is up to you. I speak from real knowledge not second hand info. nor guessing nor needing to be politically correct.

The Lawrence investigation was as I said the result of a Det Ch Supt and his team who were completely out of their depth. Detective Chief Superintendent William Isley, Detective Superintendent Ian Crampton and Detective Superintendent Brian Weedon, all involved with the investigation were friends of mine and I knew several of the team. Although it pains me to say it, because of the lack of professionalism, caused by the system as I described above, they were not sufficiently competent to do the job. None were corrupt nor racists.

[bigmarco]

In the words of Mandy Rice Davies " Well you would say that wouldn't you "

[johncar54]

In the words of Mandy Rice Davies " Well you would say that wouldn't you "

QUOTE: MRDA, an abbreviation for Mandy Rice-Davies Applies, is Internet slang meaning "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" It is used to indicate scepticism of a claim due to the obvious bias of the person making the claim.

I do hope that was tongue in cheek, and that you are not implying I might lie about it.

As and for Rice Davies. Don't lets go down that road. Harry S, mate of mine (a solicitors' clerk at the time) was in effect her legal body guard, so maybe I know a bit more about her too.,

[Michael Parnham]

Very interesting Thread John

[johncar54]

Just seen that the Libor Case defendants have been found not guilty.

Why?

I suggest

1 As I said previously the police officers involved in the investigation were not sufficiently knowledgeable to seek the evidence required, for the reasons I explained previously. (exchanging between CID and Uniform branch)

2 The Crown Prosecution Office was incompetent in their preparation the case and ensure there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. (When they started the service, in about 1986, they employed people at the beginning of their careers as lawyer who were inexperienced and naive. The pay scales meant that no competent lawyer could afford to take a job with them)

3 That the jury were completely outside their ability to understand the incredibly complication evidence and thus could not be sure they had the evidence upon which to base a conviction ,

The jury problem is not new. How can anyone expect a jury of our peers , some of whom I have witnessed even unable to read the oath, so have to repeat it after it is tread out by a court officer., to understand the evidence given (in this case) over a 15 week period.

Even in the simplest of cases, I have very often been aware of juries acquitting for reasons, often which have nothing to do with the evidence. In addition, many have been brainwashed by the media that all coppers are bent and therefore no one should be convicted.

Juries must be abolished or they should be open to investigation when they acquit to explain publically why they did so. At present jury members are forbidden to discuss what happens in the jury room. So we, the public, can never know if the system works or not, other than when we gets a story from someone who has served on a jury explaining . Often in effect, they explain how they were unable to understand the evidence, so felt they had to acquit, felt sorry for the defendant, did not like the police officer in the case, the judge etc etc..

The system is completely broken and, as an insider for almost 30 years, I see no way it will be fixed.