Jesus Christ will this never end [Content warning: concerns child abuse]

[Hotdogsarevile]

Sorry for the daily mail link but Jesus fucking Christ this is beyond awful

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13958665/sara-sharif-burned-tied-bite-marks-murder-trial.html

when will this ever end?

You are "revolted" by a legal system that treats innocent people as innocent until such point they are convicted?

You think she's innocent? Wow.

Way to go with deliberate misinterpretation of what @XDownwiththissortofthingX said.

That's not what she's saying.
The legal system treats those charged as innocent until proven guilty.
That's what she's pointing out, not that she thinks they're innocent.

We have to have a presumption of innocence. Look how many known serious miscarriages of justice there have been. If it went the other way and we presumed guilt just because the police have arrested someone, the number of innocent people in prison would rise exponentially.

I don't "think" she is innocent, and what I think is irrelevant anyway.

She literally is innocent, until such time she's convicted.

It still surprises me that she can refuse to give teeth impressions.

Suspects usually aren't allowed to refuse fingerprints or DNA samples to compare with evidence found at the crime scene.

So why is this different here?

My original point - which was pounced on - was that I don't think she should be allowed to refuse to give dental imprints in a case as serious as this. That child had adult bite marks on the inside of her thighs and the other two adults in the home have been ruled out in terms of being a match. It IS revolting that she is allowed to refuse and they should be taken from her by force. A child is dead by torture. We dont know specifically who did what exactly but no adults in that household are innocent. I undestand your point in terms of the legal system but you come across as deliberately being obtuse and perverse.

My understanding is that it's down to basic bodily autonomy. If we give the police power to take invasive samples without consent it's a power that could be badly abused. Where does it stop? If the authorities can take teeth impressions whenever they feel like it, what's to stop them deciding they want intimate samples every time they want to intimidate someone?

I don't care - I would happily push her face into the mould.

You're making a good argument, but I feel very emotional about this case (as I'm sure we all do).

Can just imagine the scene -

"hi love, what did you get up to at work today?"

"Oh, you know, the usual, beating confessions out of innocent people, assaulting people in front of their solicitor in order to acquire dental impressions"

Yup, can't foresee any problems there.

The police have the right to fingerprint you, take a DNA sample, and swab your hands after arrest. That's the limit of their automatic powers.

If they want a dental impression, they have to secure written permission from the person they've arrested, have a senior officer the rank of Inspector or above authorise it, and have a dentist carry it out.

In this particular case they couldn't do that because the woman in question refused permission, as is her right.

Perhaps if she refuses then it should be taken that she did the biting. Otherwise why not rule yourself out.

Shame it's her right. Wondering why? Is it seen as invasive? How about swabbing someone's mouth for a DNA sample surely that too is invasive.

I am very surprised people are open allowed to say that these monsters are guilty, the threads about the young man who stabbed the school girls in the summer was pulled for less speculation. Does anyone know hy the is allowed to stand? It could influence the jury, right?

Maybe it will be mentioned in court that the male defendants weren’t a match and the female defendant refused to provide a mould of her teeth.

It is obvious why she is refusing.

I wonder if the woman could be charged with perverting the court of justice for her refusal to comply. I hope so.

There are many situations where the arrested have overwhelming evidence against them and strong motivator. In those cases collection of more evidence, provided it doesn't harm the suspect, should be legal. Opening her bloody mouth for a minute won't harm her, therefore should be allowed. But criminal lawyers here may differ.

Not everyone can do dental impressions. I had lots of dental work. One thing I struggled with was definitely glue for it. It just made me gag. I can't tell you the amount of times I vomited at the six times I had to try.
if she just straight refused, we can draw conclusions as to why.

I get told off when doing dental X-rays that I am not biting down hard enough? I can’t bite down any harder it hurts so so bad to even be at the point where the dentist sighs and gives in to do the X-rays at that point.

Oh yes, dental xrays are also uncomfortable.

Many people have a strong gag reflex, we have to manage, dentist visits are not fun but needs must. This woman is on trial for the sadistic abuse of a 10 year old girl. She has allegedly supplied hand made plastic hoods to torture a little girl. She shouldn't be allowed to deny this request. Oh but her human rights and dignity.

Because that's presumption of guilt, and completely at odds with presumption of innocence which underpins our legal system.

The police caution read to you before you are charged warns “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

This would also be the case with refusal to provide a sample. It's not a tacit admission of guilt, but the fact you refused to grant permission will almost certainly be brought up by the prosecution, as the implication is that you refused to do so because you knew it would incriminate you.

I didn't say she should be able to deny it, but that it's possible she couldn't have done them because of gag reflex. And if she refused and the other two were clear then she is most likely culprit.

No, because she hasn't done anything that attempts to pervert the course of justice. She's simply exercised her right not to permit the police to take a dental impression.

She shouldn't be allowed to deny this request. Oh but her human rights and dignity

The law applies to everyone equally. The specifics of what this woman has alleged to have done are neither here nor there. If you are contending that the police should have the right to force compliance in this case, then you are also contending that they should have the right to force that upon anyone arrested for any reason whatsoever.

What exactly is it about people having human rights and treated with dignity that you object to?

Do you not recall what used to happen when the police were given carte blanche to deal with suspects as they saw fit?

The idea that people should be considered guilty as soon as they are placed under arrest appears to be a fairly widely held one on Mumsnet, and I'm sorry, but that is completely barking mad.