RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 5, 2017 at 12:45 pm
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 12:47 pm by Pat Mustard.)
I work in a police station, as a civilian clerical officer. A lot of my work is the taking in of reports from the Sergeant I/C's office either for decision by the Superintendent or Inspector (whichever one is in the office doing signing duties that day) or for onward transmission to Thurles to keep the Chief Supt appraised of ongoing investigations (she always wants to know about major incidents, incidents where members are hurt doing their duty or allegations of child abuse. Apart from that she keeps an eye out for slow moving investigations), or for transmission to the state solicitor so that the Director of Public Prosecutions can make a direction on whether a criminal charge can be brought, and if so to what level of court. As a result I get to read a lot of summary and full investigation reports.
One thing that is universal, every case the investigating member has to establish evidence other than witness testimony, whether CCTV, photographic or even forensic if they wish the case not to be sent back down to them with a scathing rebuke. Testimony, even of members of An Garda Síochána, is not enough on its own to bring a case to court, never mind getting a conviction. About the only exception to this is in historical allegations, where witness testimony comes from a good number of sources and the details given can be matched up and verified independently of the witnesses (e.g. if an address was given, ensuring that the s/o either lived at or had free access to that address at that time). And even with those kinds of cases, I can see from the investigation files that every effort possible will be made to trace physical evidence aside from the testimony.
Given that, I am fairly confident that Road Runner's scenario would make it as far as the Superintendent's office before being sent down to be marked as inactive pending the finding or submission of some actual evidence that a crime took place. Yes, it would be thoroughly investigated before this decision, but given what he is saying it would go no further.
One thing that is universal, every case the investigating member has to establish evidence other than witness testimony, whether CCTV, photographic or even forensic if they wish the case not to be sent back down to them with a scathing rebuke. Testimony, even of members of An Garda Síochána, is not enough on its own to bring a case to court, never mind getting a conviction. About the only exception to this is in historical allegations, where witness testimony comes from a good number of sources and the details given can be matched up and verified independently of the witnesses (e.g. if an address was given, ensuring that the s/o either lived at or had free access to that address at that time). And even with those kinds of cases, I can see from the investigation files that every effort possible will be made to trace physical evidence aside from the testimony.
Given that, I am fairly confident that Road Runner's scenario would make it as far as the Superintendent's office before being sent down to be marked as inactive pending the finding or submission of some actual evidence that a crime took place. Yes, it would be thoroughly investigated before this decision, but given what he is saying it would go no further.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home