Woman stripped and left topless in a cell!

[Dovetail40]

This is disturbing to read. I hope a proper investigation is carried and the missing time videos are found so she knows exactly what happened to her.

Sky news Greater Manchester Police

In the context of the DPA what is the meaning of the word "overwite" ?

But if you are adamant that software and data storage issues are impossible to occur in this day and age

Nope

I am saying that from your answers its clear that you think the police make absolutely no effort to have decent data strategies in place to minimise the impact of software and hardware issues

They barely employ the correct people, except their live in CCTV engineers

And they apparently lie in their statements as you have claimed what the GMP have actually said is wrong several times

You have given me significantly less confidence in the Police

Have we ruled out the possibility that she could have been attacked at her home address prior to the police attending?

Yes

As per the CCTV footage a woman is brought in fully clothed with no injuries.

Then she is stripped and semi dressed in her cell.

After a gaps in the CCTV footage she is naked and there is blood on the bench from where she is bleeding from her vagina/rectum.

So she goes from being uninjured and fully clothed to naked and bleeding whilst in police custody, as per their own CCTV.

So no I don't believe in the mythical man who raped her before hand but it doesn't suprise me that rather than believe the woman and the evidence you would rather make up someone that even the GMP haven't suggested exists in an attempt to claim that the police can't possibly have done something wrong.

Catchasingmewithspiders
If she is fully clothed when she is brought into the police station, you would not be able to see if she has any injures or is bleeding from a vagina or rectum.

Where have I said that GMP are wrong?
I have said 'perhaps' different things may have happened.

But if you are certain that the rape has occurred in the cell, then the management team should be sacked and jailed. Also the custody sergeants, DO's and auxiliary staff as they will have had access to that area and are all will be covering up what has happened.

How about the other detainees in custody - such as people in the next cells - are they accountable for the cover up too?

AnSolas
Overwrite - to destroy the data

The police said they have overwritten the data

So they have, by your definition, destroyed the data.

Just to be fair below is the audit question :

The police then distroyed the original data

1 Do you agree or disagree this is a factual statement.
1.1 agree
1.2 disagree

There is a woman is a prison cell. She is stripped, she is not bleeding.

The CCTV is unavailable for around an hour.

After that time period she is now bleeding and a medical professional has confirmed this is likely due to sexual assault.

What is your explanation for this.

And to be honest your other explanation for this is fairly abhorrent. You are suggesting that a woman is brought into a police station, stripped, is bleeding from an obvious sexual assault and is kept in custody for hours without medical treatment and intervention.

Do you honestly think you are making the police sound better with that alternative explanation?

Where have I said that GMP are wrong?

You keep coming up with alternative theories that actually contradict their statement. Apparently you don't believe them either.

How about the other detainees in custody - such as people in the next cells - are they accountable for the cover up too?

No they aren't. If the police have done something wrong you don't get to blame people who aren't the police for it no matter how hard you try. Not some mythical non police rapist, not capita, and not those who are locked up in other cells (if there were even other detainees). People locked in a room are not responsible for not stopping a rape in another room. Again it's abhorrent that you try to pass the blame like this.

Catchasingmewithspiders
Where is the injury - if it is high up in her vagina or rectum, she may not be pouring blood.

So its possible that she may have had the injuries prior to coming into custody.

If she had injuries which were sighted by staff in custody - then of course she should have been taken to hospital straight away.

The other detainees in the next cells would have been witnesses if nothing else - why haven't they been spoken with or raised the alarm?

But I thought we are now sure its all a cover up. One rouge cop who has carried out this rape in a cell. I'm just not sure why the senior management team are risking their jobs, pensions and jail to cover it up and deliberately destroy the data.

AnSolas
If you're certain that its been deliberately overwritten to cover up for this one cop - then its wrong.

However, if its a technical issue that's caused the issues, then the answer at this stage is still 1.2

So where did the blood come from in the CCTV if its not from her?

Are you suggesting she spontaneously started bleeding 24 hours after being raped?

She was bleeding and injured so badly she required a 5 day stay in hospital, but somehow all of this happened spontaneously at least 24 hours after being custody?

The other detainees in the next cells would have been witnesses if nothing else - why haven't they been spoken with or raised the alarm?

Are you suggesting they could see through walls? How on earth are they supposed to be witnesses when they are locked in a completely different room?

And if your concern is that potential witnesses haven't been spoken with then I think your complaint is about the police not doing their jobs properly...

So as you are the police expert maybe you can answer your own question as to why they haven't been spoken with?

But I thought we are now sure its all a cover up

You have been asked to stop saying we on another thread. There are multiple posters with multiple opinions on this thread. You cant just say "we are sure" and lump everyone in together because it suits you. There is no "we" here that you are included in.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/15vlxvf/israeli_police_beat_up_a_palestinian_man_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1

Corruption is a thing. Particularly where there is institutional hatred, or misogyny as we call it in the UK.

You keep on providing proof of your lack of basic DP training.

But sadly your inability to accept that the police force issued a public statement admitting that they have overwritten the data is an ethical problem.

Instead you are attempting a rather sad version of DARVO malicious compliance.
A poor reflection of the standard of professionalism which one should expect from any active member of a UK police force.

The Code of Ethics is about self-awareness, ensuring that everyone in policing feels able to always do the right thing and is confident to challenge colleagues irrespective of their rank, role or position.

Catchasingmewithspiders
OK - I'm not sure about GMP, they may have just one detainee at at time in their custody. They may have one station per person in Manchester.

But our custody, in not a large town, has about 50 cells - most of which are occupied the full time. In the custody corridors you will have cops on cell watches, detention officers, lay visitors, nurses, appropriate adults, solicitors. You will also have detainees being escorted to interviews, consultations with the solicitors,, L&D services, Divert services, phone calls, exercise yards etc etc So the corridors are very, very busy so someone must have heard/seen something as they passed by the cell.

But who knows, they may all be part of the cover up too. You would think another detainee (not happy with being arrested) would have said something against the police.

And I'm not saying she was pouring with blood either. Injuries can last quite a time - if not, why do police take victims/survivors of rapes for a forensic examination up to a week after the incident and have injuries documented which are bleeding?

AnSolas
OK - so in your opinion, it has been deliberately overwritten.

This can only be to cover up the offence - and since the cop responsible can not overwrite it, it must be the senior management team who have done it.

Begs the question, why have they not raised the alarm? Or anyone in custody at the time - custody sergeants, detention officers, solicitors, nurses etc. And why are they all risking their jobs, pensions and jail by doing so. All to protect one sex offending cop?

I think it may be a technical issue.

But you believe what you wish,.

@Felix125 who even are you? Do you claim to be a copper? Or just a wishful fan boy?

So the corridors are very, very busy so someone must have heard/seen something as they passed by the cell.

I had a feeling that under this "the other detainees are at fault" was the underlying feeling that its not rape unless the victim is making enough noise that people next door can hear it...

However you didn't answer my question.

Given the police are responsible for interviewing witnesses please answer the following question:

So as you are the police expert maybe you can answer your own question as to why they haven't been spoken with?

And I'm not saying she was pouring with blood either. Injuries can last quite a time - if not, why do police take victims/survivors of rapes for a forensic examination up to a week after the incident and have injuries documented which are bleeding?

I'm saying that 24 hours after she was detained, after a gap in the CCtV there was a pool of blood on the bench that wasn't there prior to the gap in the CCTV.

Injuries can certainly last some time, but its the start time that's relevant here and you did not answer the following question:

Are you suggesting she spontaneously started bleeding 24 hours after being raped?

Let me help you out

Its a DPA issue
The Police have made a public statement so it is not my opinion
You can choose to accept the public statement or not

You have decided to ignore the public statement and have no direct knowlege of the physical infastructure or individuals.
The determination to provide an alibi and blame on the station's cat is odd.

The DPA issue is a second crisis, independant and ongoing, which was has been highlighted by the police failure to comply with its legal obligation of providing the requested footage. The police have stated that they have overwritten the data. If the police had not created the second crisis, they could have used the footage to at least partly resolve the first crisis.

Catchasingmewithspiders
Perhaps they have been spoken with (detainees, detention officers, solicitors, appropriate adults L&D staff, cops on cell watches, custody sergeants etc etc)

They have either said that they haven't seen anything untoward going on - OR - they are all part of the cover up. They have also seen the cop attacking her in the cell and for someone reason, all have decided to protect the cop.

I have not said that it is the fault of the other detainees. But if others have witnessed it - shouldn't they speak up? They will all be witnesses to get this rogue cop jailed.

The answer to the other question - I am not an expert on injury physiology - but I have taken victims/survivors of rapes and sexual assaults to be forensically examined 2-3 days after their attack and they still have internal injuries which are bleeding.

AnSolas
The station cat? Where have I blamed a cat for what has happened?

OK, so you believe it must be a cover up by everyone in custody (custody staff, sergeants, solicitors etc etc) and the senior management team from the police and Capita. All risking their jobs, pensions and jail to cover for one rogue cop. They reviewed the footage, saw the crime in question, then decided to delete that footage so the cop would be saved.

Why would they do this?

Why not just arrest the cop?

Can you please explain how detainees were supposed to witness the rape through walls?

You keep saying they will have seen the rape, but you haven't explained how you are so certain of this when, by your own explanation, they won't have been in the same cell

If I'm raped in my flat and my flatmate doesn't see it, does that mean the rape can't have happened?

I understand rape victims can still be bleeding days after. That wasn't my question. My question is

Are you suggesting she spontaneously started bleeding 24 hours after being raped?

Look at my shocked face. See how shocked I am.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/met-police-biometrics-watchdog-personal-data/

Why are you so unwilling to accept the police statement that they have overwritten the data?

Well colour me unsurprised

The police are breaking the law/behaving as if they are above the law again

Felix I can't believe you are still banging on about this. This not the same but to give you an idea how easy it is for more than one police officer to lie or noises made in police cells that people ignore (blaming other detainees? Good one).

I have a family member who has severe mental health issues including past attempted suicide.

He was arrested for smashing a window with his fist when drunk. Quite rightly he was detained because it was a criminal act. He was noisy in his cell by his own admission, no one bothered. No other detainees reported in. Now think of someone drugged or how easy it is to cover their mouth.

I PERSONALLY handed over his medication - including anti psychotic medication - and spoke to a minimum of 3 officers over that weekend, explaining his condition, how important his medication was and his history of self harm.

EVERY SINGLE one of them lied to me. They said he was given his medication and had been assessed by a psychiatric nurse. None of it was true, they fed him and that was it.

So yeah, police do lie and cover up. All this BS 'oh but why would they risk their jobs to cover up for each other?' erm because they are very unlikely to lose their jobs because they are police? Because they have contempt towards the people they detain and all stick together?

Not really a risk if they stick up for each other with their only witnesses being other people detained for a criminal offence. Doesn't look great in court does it!

Catchasingmewithspiders
Can you please explain how detainees were supposed to witness the rape through walls?
The rape couldn't have happened in a cell with a closed door - as a cell door can only be opened from the outside with a key - there is no key hole on the inside of the door. So if the rogue cop went into the cell and closed the door behind him, he can't get back out, so the door would have to have been left open.

Other detainees are often on the move around custody, escorted by detention officers - going to interviews, going to speak with solicitors, going to speak to L&D, going to speak to Divert services, going to see the nurse, going to the exercise yard, going to see their appropriate adults etc etc.

So the corridor is a busy place with lots of people walking past the cell at any one time. They wouldn't need to see through cell walls, if the door is open they will be able to see in

Are you suggesting she spontaneously started bleeding 24 hours after being raped?
No - Could the injury have been there all along? When she was brought into custody she was fully clothed, hence the injury could have been concealed. It was only in the cell when her clothing was removed that the injury became evident.

AnSolas
I'm not - I am just suggesting that it may be a technical issues as apposed to it being deliberately done to cover up for a rogue cop.

anon1888
Did you speak to the other detainees on that wing and ask them if they heard anything from your family member's cell? Most detainees complain to their OIC, DO or solicitor about being next to a noisy cell. It often happens as a lot of people in custody are not happy about being there and will make a noise to protest.

The three officers you spoke with - were they just 3 random police officers or were they specifically tasked with looking after him. Were they custody detention officers? Were they assuming he had been given his medication to put your mind at rest? And how do you know he wasn't given any of his medication?

If he wasn't - it's wrong and you shouldn't have been lied to or assumed he had been given it.

They should have said "no idea" - or did they check the custody record and it was documented on there?

Are you suggesting she spontaneously started bleeding 24 hours after being raped?

No - Could the injury have been there all along? When she was brought into custody she was fully clothed, hence the injury could have been concealed. It was only in the cell when her clothing was removed that the injury became evident.

No it wasn't in the cell when her clothing was removed that the injury became evident. It was a full 24 hours later. That's my point. For a full 24 hours there is no blood visible on the CCTV, then the footage shows nothing for an hour or so and suddenly there is a significantly visible amount of blood.

So how are you suggesting that blood suddenly appeared 24 hours after being stripped if this was due to a pre existing injury?

So the corridor is a busy place with lots of people walking past the cell at any one time. They wouldn't need to see through cell walls, if the door is open they will be able to see in

Well for starters if I am a female detainee and I saw another women being raped by a male police officer I sure as hell wouldn't open my mouth!

But still I'm curious, given its an ongoing investigation I would have thought the public wouldn't know if the detainees had been interviewed or given evidence. Does your insistence that they must have seen something mean that you have additional information? Or are you using the confidentiality of police investigations to somehow prove something couldn't have happened?

Catchasingmewithspiders
So how are you suggesting that blood suddenly appeared 24 hours after being stripped if this was due to a pre existing injury?
Injuries can re-open again and start to bleed a number of hours/days after the initial assault. I'm no expert but we have taken people to hospital due to injuries having re-opened.

Forensic examinations have documented injuries that are still bleeding a number of days after a sexual the attack. Or reopened again.

Well for starters if I am a female detainee and I saw another women being raped by a male police officer I sure as hell wouldn't open my mouth!
After you have been released? You have a lot of detainees just waiting to 'get back at police' and here is a golden opportunity - but you're saying they wouldn't say anything to their solicitor? And there will be both male & female detainees on that corridor.

And its not just detainees in the corridor. Its solicitors, cops on cell watches, detention officers bring meals, cell visits, cleaners, nurses, app adults, lay visitors etc etc

I am suggesting that its not a very private place to rape someone.

So your story is that she was raped by someone she doesn't even remember prior to being arrested. But there was no sign of a struggle in the house. And because her wounds must have closed at this point for your theory she must have been raped a decent amount of time before the arrest and therefore potentially before she even got high.

She then gets to the stations and is stripped. There is no sign of a possible rape which is why the police didn't get her medical attention.

Then after the CCTV footage is absent, and 24 hours after she is in custody, her wounds reopen for no apparent reason, so much so that there are bloodstains clearly visible on the CCTV, with significant amounts of blood. Despite there having been no signs of wounds when she entered custody.

And when she is taken to hospital its 5 days before she leaves and when she does leave she is still struggling to walk.

That's an awful lot of random occurrences just to talk around the possibility of her having been raped by the police.

You know when doctors say "If you hear hooves think horses not zebras", at this point you sound like you are thinking unicorns.

As for your second comment you still didn't answer this:

But still I'm curious, given its an ongoing investigation I would have thought the public wouldn't know if the detainees had been interviewed or given evidence. Does your insistence that they must have seen something mean that you have additional information? Or are you using the confidentiality of police investigations to somehow prove something couldn't have happened?

Catchasingmewithspiders
My suggestion is:

Is it possible that she could have been drugged, then raped/sexually assaulted by a person prior to her arrest?

There doesn't necessarily need to be signs of a struggle at a rape scene, especially if she has been drugged prior to this.

Her wounds may not have fully closed, but she was clothed prior to the arrest which may have concealed it. Does she also have any medical condition that may also lead to bleeding which can be exasperated by a sexual assault/rape - vaginal or uterine polyp, rectal polyp, pile etc?

Where are the blood stains on CCTV and when you say 'a significant amount of blood' are we talking a cup full or more? Are the blood stains on the bench where she has been sat? Has she been sat in a such a position which has put pressure on a partially closed wound which has then re-opened? Is it rectal or vaginal blood? Is it smeared or pooled? If its a significant amount is it congealed?

If the wounds are to the vagina and/or rectum - if they were partially closed, there would not have been evident when she came into custody. People don't get internally examined when they come into custody.

What did they do at the hospital that took 5 days? Did they do a medical procedure on her? What is the medical reason for her not being able to walk after 5 days? The examiner who said that she has been sexually assaulted/raped - are they a forensic medical examiner?

"If you hear hooves think horses" - yes all the time. Just assume that it must be a horse. Don't even entertain the possibility that it might be something else. Lots of other animals have hooves and are not routinely shod, why not consider them?

As for your second comment you still didn't answer this:
I am suggesting that it is not a very private place to commit a rape - given the amount of traffic which is coming and going along the corridor.