Something has puzzled and disturbed me for months. Today I want to begin a process of getting an answer to that something. I would invite you to join me in being part of that process here and today.
Its a simple yet important question – and it demands an answer. Why didn’t the police ever seize all devices belonging to AF and DF?
They had both the motive and the opportunity to do so yet did not do so. Why not? Getting the paperwork required to seize all of their devices for scrutiny is one of the first things I’d have ordered. Albeit the SD card was discovered two years after the fact it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that it represented a great opportunity for police to find out what else they had been making and doing. Why did they not take that opportunity? This was not your usual animal abuse or neglect case – they made a torture video.
If making,editing and probably sharing a home made torture video isn’t good enough reason to have taken their devices and gone through them all then I don’t know what is.
Who knows that further evidence that the police totally missed out on and due to the absence of that one action?
This aspect of the case has bugged me since day and been made worse by the fact that not one single report, MP or anyone in authority has asked that question of police – ever.
Unless I am totally unaware of it no one in any public office and no journalist has ever asked Cleveland police why they didn’t. Even failing to ask that question is a form of negligence imo, since it is a fair and pertinent question and since their failure to do so has implications.
Let’s at least try to get an answer to this by the weekend. I think its important that we get a formal answer to this question so that we are no longer puzzled or reduced to guesswork.
It may simply come down to the fact that they neglected to do so despite having the authority. If that’s the case then we definitely need to know since that would mean they did not carry out their duties to optimum levels and it would mean that other damning evidence could potentially have been missed.
The police are public workers. They are paid from the purse that you all put money into, one way or the other. If they are asked such a question then they have a duty to answer you.
If you agree that the police should have seized there devices and are baffled as to why they failed to do so – ask.
If they fail to answer the public yet again then this in itself would be damning. But still ask. Just keep it specific to that one part.
You can try…
Shared Service Centre
Stockton on Tees
We definitely need and want an answer and since no politician or reporter has asked the question then you should.
They can’t make the excuse “we have no power”.
‘Police have used powers under the Terrorism Act to seize the laptop of a young Newsnight journalist in a case that has shocked BBC colleagues and alarmed freedom of speech campaigners, The Independent can disclose.’
And there is this…
When arrested and/or subject to a police investigation, you may have property confiscated from you which is then held by the police on your behalf.
When the Police investigate criminal offences, they are give wide ranging powers to seize property they believe is relevant to the investigation. This is principally done under s.19 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 84).
General power of seizure.
The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing
(a)that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence.
(What police should have been seizing – rather than writing notes for Vannah)