Just been accused of being a person of interest in a malicious communications offence that happened years ago

[justbeenaccused]

I received a letter from the police summoning me to the station of a voluntary interview. I am a person of interest in a malicious comms case that occured in 2019.

Does this mean I am a suspect, or a witness etc.?
How can I find out who reported me ?

Terrible advice. The OP is a suspect. That’s what ‘person of interest’ means. And if she doesn’t attend, she won’t be ‘approached’, she’ll be arrested. Being asked to attend an interview under caution isn’t voluntary. It just means that the matter isn’t urgent enough to warrant the police finding the resources to arrest you when they can ask you to attend for questioning at a pre arranged time and place, which also allows you to arrange suitable counsel for the interview. But make no mistake, once you attend, you are effectively under arrest. The alternative is being publicly arrested and probably embarrassed, and spending time in the cells waiting for a solicitor to be appointed before they can interview you.

If I say I don't recognise it ( and I genuinely don't) would it make me look guilty or would staying silent throughout the whole thing help?

You think you have a small amount of knowledge, you don’t.

Tell me,

1. How do you brute force an iPhone?
2. What information can you retrieve from a reset iPhone?
3. Can anyone tell when an iPhone was erased?

waits with bated breath

Why do you have to admit to screenshots if you don’t recognise them or they contain content you don’t recall posting/sending?

Do you know how easy it is to fabricate a screenshot?

I wouldn’t be deciding on a particular course of action beforehand. Wait and see what, if any, evidence they have, and then be guided by your solicitor - that’s what they’re there for.

You need to attend, all you can do is seek legal counsel and tell the truth

You need to ask your lawyer, not a bunch of strangers on the internet.

Blimey, how unsettling. Glad you have a solicitor. I agree with those who advise you to go in ''no comment'' ing. I wouldn't even do it in a cheery way. It might look cocky. I'd look serious.

Ten years ago, before the police seemed like something out of 1984 or kafka I'd have agreed with tilly to just tell the truth but the world has changed.

If they have strong evidence you have done something, you recognising/remembering it or not won't change anything in the eyes of the law (or everybody would have a sudden bout of amnesia).

If there is no evidence, you don't need to remember it or not.

Sorry but your posts make it sound like you know exactly what you have done but hope you can just pretend you don't remember. TALK TO YOUR LAWYER.

Yes, legal rep and "no comment" to everything

Sorry but your posts make it sound like you know exactly what you have done but hope you can just pretend you don't remember.

I agree. The OP's weird replies and questions make it sound like she's actually guilty and knows a lot more than she's telling people here. She's seems to be looking for a loophole or technicality to gauge how serious the situation truly is. If this is how she behaves at the actual interview, then things do not look good.

A genuinely innocent person will be entirely bewildered and denying upfront that anything happened. They will be asking how to get out of being unfairly framed for a crime. Imagine you are fully innocent and forced to attend a police interview where you could be arrested. And you actually know the parties who set you up. You would NOT be considering staying silent the entire interview. You would be telling them about the cousins who set you up or digging out all the paperwork/screenshots right now that corroborates with your story.

So yeah, this thread is quite dodgy. It sounds like people are giving well-meant advice to someone who is not telling the whole story under the guise of "not remembering".

You’re correct that it is voluntary so they don’t have to go but they will have some evidence to put to them. If they refuse then there’s a possibility that they can build a case against them with what they do have. I’ve seen it when I used to work in prosecutions. I would suggest going, ask them to arrange legal representation for you, which they will do. At least they will know what is going on rather than having it potentially hanging over them for who knows how long.

@Hanlonsamazer Yeah, I'm aware of that I meant if they have solid evidence that it was posted and not fabricated then there's no point in denying it.

if they have solid evidence, why not just arrest me, why interview me first?

Because this way is far less traumatic for you

but the police don't care about my trauma, they care about their costs and reputation

It is easier for everyone to ask people to come?

You can be charged without being arrested?

An interview might just be part of the interrogation?

Why don't you ask you lawyer?

I'm assuming like with me it wasn't deemed necessary to arrest, as in it's not something majorly bad so instead they've invited you to come yourself. You could not go but then they could, if they wanted to, arrest you for not going.

That too. Still doesn’t alter the fact that they’re offering you a better option than being publicly arrested and spending time in the cells waiting for a solicitor to be appointed.

Either way, why do you care? They asked you to go, there must be a reason. Would you rather they come knock at your door and arrest you in front of your whole neighbourhood/family? (Then you would be asking why they did not just ask you to go to the station for an interrogation)

if they have solid evidence, why not just arrest me, why interview me first?

Because the people doing interviews are trained experts in body language, behaviour, speech, tone and experience from interviewing thousands of people in the same situation. They can tell by tiny mannerisms in your speech if you're most probably lying or pretending not to remember something rather than genuinely not being able to remember.

Even if they feel they have solid evidence, they probably want confirmation to see how the "person of interest" reacts when presented with certain facts. They have probably already formulated some trick questions based on certain parts of the evidence that are designed to trip up an actual suspect. Things like using the wrong tense, mentioning a tiny incriminating detail etc.

However if you are genuinely innocent, then they will be able to sense that too. If you are genuinely bewildered or just explain the whole story to them from your POV (with solicitor present), then you have nothing to worry about.

Your point?

True but if your neighbour were arrested and the police went in their house and carried out all their electronic devices what would you automatically assume?

For clarity - I suggested OP may be a victim of a set up - I did not mean by the police. What I meant was that someone may have created and supplied faked evidence to the police which they are (presumably) reasonably acting upon.

The police have enough to do without creating crimes to investigate!

Were the messages email? WhatsApp? IM?
Automatically saved elsewhere?

Restoring factory settings won't do fuck all there then.