willman Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I am the only witness to an incident that I can't say any more on. Two police officers have spent two weeks on overtime interviewing people who have no knowledge of it, they have coined it in. In your opinion- unfortunately the police codes of conduct don't allow them to take your word. Can you prove they've only been doing it on overtime? Or has the case run into overtime in general. Would you be happier if they didn't bother interviewing anyone and just walked off shift or had a weeks holiday in the middle of an investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I am the only witness to an incident that I can't say any more on. Two police officers have spent two weeks on overtime interviewing people who have no knowledge of it, they have coined it in. Unless you're the criminal and the victim you can't be the only witness btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Unless you're the criminal and the victim you can't be the only witness btw. Why did you mention 'criminal' and 'victim'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Why did you mention 'criminal' and 'victim'? The point was simple,but perhaps not made clear enough, unless you were responsible for the incident and were the injured party surely there would be other "witnesses" or persons worthy of interviewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Uppers Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 What on earth was a florist doing open at 2140hrs???? or is it just me who thinks they usually close around tea time:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 The point was simple,but perhaps not made clear enough, unless you were responsible for the incident and were the injured party surely there would be other "witnesses" or persons worthy of interviewing. You bet it was simple, you have no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I am the only witness to an incident that I can't say any more on. Two police officers have spent two weeks on overtime interviewing people who have no knowledge of it, they have coined it in. How's that related to this incident? And what makes you think that they'd rather be interviewing people who can't help them than at home with their families? More likely they're covering all their bases so that someone can't criticise them later for not having asked the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 You bet it was simple, you have no idea what you are talking about. I think he's referring to the way that there is normally a victim and a perpertrator, although his logic is probably flawed. I could be the victim of a burglary, but I wouldn't be a witness, there might be only one witness (the burglar) or there might be two, the burglar and crookesey, or there might be more if I were the victim of an assault, myself, the assaulter and crookesey. Or if I were murdered there'd be three, but I'd be dead and not up to talking much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I think he's referring to the way that there is normally a victim and a perpertrator, although his logic is probably flawed. I could be the victim of a burglary, but I wouldn't be a witness, there might be only one witness (the burglar) or there might be two, the burglar and crookesey, or there might be more if I were the victim of an assault, myself, the assaulter and crookesey. Or if I were murdered there'd be three, but I'd be dead and not up to talking much! Unfortunately even the victim of crime is often referred to as giving a "witness statement" ,at Derbyshire police anyway, not a victim statement nor a perpetrator statement. Hence why i clarified with "persons worthy of interviewing" for people who took witness literally in the first instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 How's that related to this incident? And what makes you think that they'd rather be interviewing people who can't help them than at home with their families? More likely they're covering all their bases so that someone can't criticise them later for not having asked the questions. On your first point, report my post and leave it to admin. On your second point, it would be impossible for anyone else to see what I saw unless they covered the same area as me, on foot and at the same time. As I didn't see anyone, they cannot have seen what I saw. My point, if the incident that I referred to is not related to the post, why do you wish to perpetuate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.