Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:58
The cop didn’t fill in all the details as to why he didn’t investigate further, and a fair analysis of the situation would have given the answers anyway
The crim (perp is an American expression used in US cop shows…crim in Oz) stole some goods. As you chased the crim, you must have been able to give a reasonable description of the person.
Remember to prove a case before a Court, the Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed and the correct person charged with this.
Without those two elements proven, any case would be doomed to failure and it would be a waste of police time and money to investigate further.
Without a reasonable description of the offender, the cops would be limited in being able to take the next step. Where should they start looking for the goods? Investigate every backyard shed in a 20 KM radius?
Finger prints on the bolt cutter? Any self respecting crim would be wearing gloves anyway. Without a reasonable description of the crim going through the cost of testing the finger prints (probably at least a few hundred dollars and a few hours wages) would have been a waste of time
All the fingerprints prove (assuming they were even on record) is that the owner of the fingerprints handled the bolt cutters in the past: “Yeah Officer, they look like my bolt cutters, they used to be in the back of the ute, but some low life stole them”
The cop has to prove in a Court that the owner of the fingerprints used the cutters in the burg…unless you can identify the person beyond reasonable doubt, how is that going to be proved?
DNA testing? How much does this cost? How long does it take? What evidence was available to prove a case before a Court that the person is a suspect so that a DNA sample could be taken from them? Again, all any DNA available would prove is that a person had handled the cutters in the past.
Given the cost and the pressures of the police labs, the case would have to be serious to justify the expense and the time to justify such action being taken. Consider the conflicting priorities of offences, DNA testing to identify a serial rapist versus a burglar.
It is good practice to identify any items owned, engraving, photos, identifying marks, recording serial numbers etc.
However, should the cops find an Aladdin’s
cave full of possibly stole goods, they still have to prove that these were stolen. If they have a record of goods with specific identifying marks they have recorded, that is the first step. But, without reasonable basis to identify the crim and that a crime had been committed, they wouldn’t be able to even get a search warrant to enter the place.
As many of the contents of my shed have been inherited or bought a markets I’d be going to prove ownership of most of the items if a cop looked in my shed
Can I ask in relation to your last comment in relation to killing someone with a block of wood, what case was this and what was the person convicted of? Murder, manslaughter, negligently causing death. What evidence did the prosecution present before the Court to result in that sentence?
FollowupID:
613586