Woman alleges sexual assault by Greater Manchester Police whilst in custody

Lol, he was the wrong guy!

he's completely innocent.

It is laughable yet at the same time abhorrent how keen some people are to defend the police at all costs, focussing on all the wrong elements of the situation and constantly implying that women are generally liars.

yourhairiswinterfire
But GMP withheld evidence. Andrew Malkinson was denied a fair trial.......

The evidence was put before a jury - and the jury convicted based on that evidence.

Are you saying that because someone is a drug addict and has a criminal record they cannot be believed? Would this be the same for a victim/survivor of sexual offence - we should automatically not believe them if they have a criminal record?

What is the evidence line with the scratch on the face - is the victim 100% certain she scratched his face - or has she said that she believes she might have scratched his face. It could be that she lost the her nail whilst fighting her attacker off and caught it on his clothing. If that is the case then the police solely basing their enquiries for a man with a scratch on his face become irrelevant as they attacker may not have one. Unless you have seen her statement/ABE interview you cannot judge the significance of this scratch.

Destroying the clothing - has it been subject to DNA examination using chemical treatment? If its low copy count DNA, the clothing will be destroyed by that process alone.

The suspect was 3 inches shorter/taller - do you honestly think that a victim/survivor or a rape will be able to give an accurate description of his height to within an inch.....?

But.... but...here in the real world it's not like a bank lets you off your repayments because you're in prison. If you own a house and want to keep owning it you still have to pay, surely?

What happened to the grown ups being in charge with logic and facts? Who let the toddlers take control?

Christ on a bike. Talk about go out of your way to paint yourselves as utterly monstrous.

I also thought it was complete madness and must be a weird interpretation of something that surely never happens. So I looked it up, and found this. I'm still scraping my jaw off the floor.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-66324801.amp

The bit about 'they'll have saved money on a paying mortgage' is just

Absolute insanity.

The board and lodgings thing is just so insane that I can hardly believe it to be true. It's so perverse and bizarre that any organisation could make such a statement.

I would contribute to a fundraiser to pay that for him rather than he loses a substantial chunk of any possible compensation.

I believe her.
God, what a terrible state of affairs. GMP and doubtless so many other areas, rotten to the core.
I fear for my daughters and nieces, I really do.
Zayna is remarkably brave to do this. May she get the answers, apology and compensation that she deserves.

Malkinson has now been told he will have money deducted from his compensation (if he wins) for wrongful imprisonment for his "board and food" because he will have made "substantial savings on his living costs" whilst he was in prison.

I cannot imagine just how enraging this must be for him.

His solicitors say Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. He was three inches taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and also had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned.

ffs!! If it wasn't so bloody serious it would be clownish

Fairly sure the attacker also had a shaved chest and he had a full chest hair growth.

Oh yes. Once might be understandable. Even twice. After three times it becomes a bit odd.

And when it appears to be your sole hobby, it tells me all I need to know.

Same. I believe her and I no longer trust the police. Its revolting.

It shows how desperate some men are to defend incompetent and corrupt policing despite the shedload of evidence and multiple apologies.
And - yet again - the police leave a rapist free to roam the streets.

Plus he looked nothing like the e fit and had the wrong accent.

As a previous poster put it, clean your house you arseholes.

I believe her

Can I also point out that she had sexual injuries. Key word being injuries. Not evidence of recent sexual activity. Injuries.

But at some point, the eye witnesses were examined & cross examined and the jury made their decision based on the evidence.

But GMP withheld evidence. Andrew Malkinson was denied a fair trial 'because of “grave and repeated” disclosure failings by Greater Manchester police'.

They didn't disclose that one 'witness' only came forward on the day he was arrested, was a long-term heroin addict with multiple convictions, and at the time was facing 14 criminal charges. Charges which should have resulted in 'imprisonment and substantial fines', but strangely ended with just 2 cautions and a £145 fine, 'raising questions over his motivation'.

The disclosure failure made it possible to present him to the jury as honest and independent – and came despite explicit requests for witnesses’ criminal records.

The victim caused a deep scratch on the rapist's face, which broke one of her nails. Malkinson was seen by police the next day with no scratches. The police took photographs of the victim's hand on the night of the attack, showing one nail was 'significantly shorter than the others'. The court wasn't given the photographs, and because of that, the judge invited the jury to 'consider that the victim might have been mistaken in her memory about the scratch'.

Then GMP destroyed the victim's clothing whilst a preservation order was still in place.

GMP stitched him up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/26/andrew-malkinson-greater-manchester-police-failings-denied-man-fair-trial-court-told

@AHugeTinyMistake I was thinking the same thing. They were waiting for it to clear her system.

She was not fit to be in custody. If she was in hospital it would have been entered in the log. Instead they put in that she was seen by a doctor which did not happen. They have the missing 3 hours.

"clean house you arseholes" quite. It's truly a shit show.

MrsOvertonsWindow
Yes - I know it goes to CPS who authorise a charge.
It then goes through a whole host of legal arguments before the trail

But at some point, the eye witnesses were examined & cross examined and the jury made their decision based on the evidence.

Do we ignore eye witness testimony now and solely base rape trails on DNA evidence?

AHugeTinyMistake
I am assuming she was arrested for assault on emergency worker. They will need to wait until she becomes fit to be interviewed for that offence.

Not sure why it took 40 hours for this - unless it included a stay in hospital at some point whilst in custody.

A spokesperson for GMP said: "Greater Manchester Police is committed to delivering outstanding service to all those the force comes in to contact with. If service is proven to have fallen below an acceptable level, the force apologises and takes the necessary action.

ffs

clean house you arseholes

When Zayna went to hospital afterwards and the medics there discovered sexual injuries, there was reference to 'a date rape drug'

Cocaine is not a date rape drug and she was arrested while under the effects of it - she was agitated and struggling

Call me deeply deeply cynical but I am wondering if they kept her in custody for so long to try and make sure whatever they'd given her to make her barely conscious/compliant/anaesthetised was out of her system as much as possible to make it less likely it would be discovered subsequently.

Am I way off base here do you think? There's no reason to have kept her in for 40 hours is there? It was a welfare call originally, she knocked glasses off a policewoman's face when they were at her house - if they were concerned for her welfare why keep her in custody for 40 hours? She should be in hospital? There's no evidence for a medical exam - it's in the log but not on CCTV.