The rape case shown in 24 Hours in Police Custody yesterday on Channel 4: Did the police do enough to gather evidence for a charge?

[KindDogsTail]

Trigger Warning.

www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody

This was about a Spanish girl who had allegedly been raped. The CPS had the alleged perpetrator in custody for 24 hours. They were not able to bring a charge in the end because of lack of evidence.

I wondered if anyone else who watched this wondered if the police
did enough to find evidence.

Does anyone think they should have had photographs of the bruising on Alba's arms taken when she was first in hospital after the alleged rape? At one point they said they did not have any. By that time the bruises were fading.

There was blood on the sheets. They did not seem to ask what level of violence had been needed for that or ask the man about it.

On the CCTV footage when she was walking out of the room in the corridor, it seemed she was walking oddly. The police did not mention this. Did I imagine that?

Also, an interpreter was talking to Alba in Spanish. The police never seemed to look into whether or not she would have been capable of saying what the accused said she had - in English.

Why did they not do more to work out what the "I will" shouting had meant that the non-English speaking German in another room thought he had heard her shouting. Perhaps the man had been telling her to do something with threat and she said 'I will, I will!' or some other explanation.

Anyway, I feel sick with sadness for her.

Desmond
I realise how hard and relentless your work must be. You probably need so many more people and so much more time too. Thank you for coming on this discussion. Thank you for all you do for everyone every day.

Angry
I'll try and work out a letter. It will not do any good of course.

I did write to the police, in the hope it might help even a little. I wrote a covering letter, then longer detailed notes about every point. I watched the programme five times to be absolutely sure about details and wrote everything down very carefully so nothing would be vague.

I transcribed lots of the actual dialogue, and pinpointed the part of the dialogue in the interview related to what Griffin said here:
I also questioned his statement on putting his finger up her bum. He said that she was surprised afterwards so he admitted that there was no discussion prior to him doing it, and therefore he couldn't have gained her consent. EVEN if she HAD consented to vaginal intercourse, he made it clear that she hadn't consented to anal penetration

I put in quotes from the CPS site about consenting needing to be asked for every single activity. That anal part was definitely new, and by his own admission he had not asked before he did it. I also saw by his body language that he lied when he said finger. While he is saying that, he fidgets and flicks two fingers and a thumb back and forth on the desk.

I found more Spanish that sound like I will it. Including He duele.
This means literally I have pain, so 'It hurts'. It sounds a bit like Ai'd welle...Ai'd welle.. Ai'd welle...Ai'd.. If you imagine saying that repeatedly, (the witness said it was repeatedy) so the ending and beginning run together; imagine it coming from behind a wall, and maybe from behind a hand too -as the listener was foreign, that is an example of something that could be heard sounding like what the witness said he thought he had heard.

In addition, (and related to the weak evidence of the foreign witness over hearing a foreign woman from behind a wall, and maybe from behind a hand), I also found research, and quoted it and linked it, on how far people are able to interpret emotion from voices alone. The answer is not that well, Fear, being the one most often missed. And also the one in a hundred people on the ASD spectrum, are not very able to interpret tone at the best of times.

Also the witness said first, he had not paid attention to tone. He only said second that she had not sounded distressed or he might have done something about it. The police interviewer had asked him a leading, closed question about distress. The witness knew he was on television, and so might, naturally, have possibly said this to vindicate his actions for not reporting it, (let alone if he had misheard the tone) - now he knew a crime happened that night.

I also found other things written by rape experts saying it is a rape myth that someone who was really raped, never lies about anything in their report. Sometimes, as one example, they do lie to cover up something that makes them blame themselves, and makes them think they won't be believed - but they were really raped.

Meanwhile the alleged rapist had told lies and contradicted himself.
Some lies stood out: he said in his first interview that she had moaned with pleasure. In the second one, when shown the CCTV of her pushing him away when they left the hotel, he said that was her being [sexually] frustrated. Also he said she only moaned [pleasure] and specifically denied she had said anything, but the witness heard actual words said repeatedly. He also presumably had lied/cheated on his partner who was mentioned in regard to a telephone call.

I also emailed Kier Starmer, with the letter and detailed notes as attached documents, as I was aware he had done a lot about rape at one point and thought he would understand. However, an answer came that you have to put your address and they will only read things from residents of his constituency which is Holborn and St Pancras.

Does any one here have any other ideas of whom to write to?
www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody/on-demand/61751-005
There are 9 days left for anyone who would like to see this.

Kinddogs I speak some Spanish and of course me duele (meh dwellay) could sound like I will it to a non native English person or non Spanish speaker. The witness would have assumed the person speaking was speaking English because he was in England. As a pp poster meant she could have also been saying abuela (abwella) meaning grandmother.

paddypants13 Thu 14-Jul-16 12:17:44
Kinddogs

I am glad you thought so Paddy
I wrote to the Bedfordshire police and tried to explain it all the points I and other posters had seen in great detail. I also wrote out all the possible Spanish things that could sound like that. I know just a little but enough to see how easy it would be. Especially as the German said the words were repeated. If you imagine one thing said over and over so everything runs together.

I also found research that shows that people are actually not very good at interpreting tone of voice, especially where fear is involved.

So it was very sad the victim's case was not taken to court.

I hope they read it, but probably not.

They really counted a German man's allegiation that he had heard "no fear" in her voice, or that she said something specific, as evidence? What?

I think I am very good at English, but I still often don't understand English movies if the speech is slurred in any way.

That a non-native speaker would be able to understand what another non-native speaker said in English, or even correctly identify the language ... that's really, really weak.

Horrible.

I think we need a law that makes "rough sex" technically illegal. Still legal if no one complains, of course, but this "But she could have consented to have him hurt her so bad she bled!" is nonsense.
No other crime is treated that way. If someone can prove he has been punched in the face, is he then asked to prove that he hasn't consented to being punched in the face? Of course not!

I think, horribly enough. blood and bruises may be thought of as being the result of consensual rough sex otherwise why was not more made of it. I agree I just cannot understand why it isn't plenty of evidence in its own right.

Yes, the whole German hotel guest evidence and the poor girl's interview about it when she was flown back from Spain to talk about it seemed, imo, a shameful, ignorant and destructive exercise.

In a room with two policemen and a male interviewer, she was told he had heard her say I will it I will it repeatedly" Then she was told he said she had not sounded distressed and she understandably just started to cry. She thought they were telling her she had said "I will do it" and that they thought she was lying and that they thought she had not been distressed. No rape advocate woman support seemed to be with her in the room. No interview techniques were used with her to gently explore her memories about what she said, without pouncing in her with "I will it ".

The German hotel guest had only said this anyway after a leading question - "Did she sound distressed?" and he answered first that when you have just been woken up you don't pay attention to tone. It was an afterthought of his to say If she had sounded distressed he would probably have done something about it - which as he was on TV now realising there was a rape investigation probably meant he was vindicating himself for not have reported the noise.)

The police never went on to try to find out what tone there had been in that case?

Oddly, the police did not seem to pick up that, given what the German guest had said, the alleged rapist had lied in his interview because he had specifically denied when asked that the victim had ever said any words and he had said, "No" she had just moaned with pleasure.

I suppose the programme makers could have just missed the police mentioning that point, but they seemed careful on the whole so that would have been odd of them.

The detective police woman was always good though. (She did not seem to be in the room when the 'I will it' interview with the alleged victim was going on though)

You watched a TV programme five times and wrote a letter to a Police force pointing out where you think they went wrong?.

I think you had the best of intentions but that is an odd thing to do and did you think they'd get your letter and think 'oh hang on, this woman with no experience of working within the criminal justice system has pointed out flaws in our investigation, best get back on it'?.

straightouttacompton Fri 22-Jul-16 18:35:00
You watched a TV programme five times and wrote a letter to a Police force pointing out where you think they went wrong?

I think you had the best of intentions but that is an odd thing to do and did you think they'd get your letter and think 'oh hang on, this woman with no experience of working within the criminal justice system has pointed out flaws in our investigation, best get back on it ?

I did not write about where they went wrong, but wrote about some things I and other posters saw which they did not seem to be aware of. Yes, it was odd, but sometimes doing nothing in the face of something that seems awful might be odder.

I do not particularly care if I seem like a mad woman to them, which is probably what they do think!

Many years ago there was a programme about the Reading Police and a woman came in with a complaint of rape. In that case, the criminal justice system, who did all they thought reasonable at the time, were clearly awful in how they treated the woman and the case. People were shocked, and things have moved on a bit because of those reactions from people who know nothing about the criminal justice system.

Recentky the criminal justoce system igmored case after case of vulenarble girls being raped and did nothing about it until The Times started researching what had been going on.

I do not think for one moment they will think 'best get back on it' but if by any chance other people wrote too, which is possible, and if by any chance the detective in charge read it, perhaps it will make some very small dent in the thinking.

Sorry about the mistakes, I thought I was clicking on review not send.

KindDogsTail
I think it's great how much you care about this but I think it might get more out of the police if you asked them what kind of policies and training they have in place to stop the kind of mistakes that you have identifiedbased on the TV programme.

Eg do they have guidelines about how soon after an assaultthey should take photos?

What training do they provide about making sure police don't draw wrong conclusions in cases where the victim and/or witnesses are not native English speakers.

If you mention the freedom of information act when you ask questions like that, I think they would be obliged to reply.

And if they then don't have good enough training in place, that would be something you could get your MP to lobby for to make sure similar mistakes don't happen again.

That is a very good Idea ColdandGloomy Thank you for that
and thank you for the question ideas.

I could re-frame what I wrote as questions and mention the freedom of information act. I'm pretty sure they might reply with more-or-less stock answers, but you are right it would be worth asking if one dared.

In this case they did employ a native translator, but he did not come up with any ideas as to what the words which sounded like English (but basically in a non-sensical phrase), might have been saying in Spanish. So that would have been a case of the police needing to realise it did not make real sense, to realise it should not be taken literally and that they needed to probe outside the box. So it may have been that they needed to be a bit more imaginative and to ask the translator to think of everything he could in Spanish that sounded like that.
Is the question there, What tests are given to the police to find out their abilities for creative and verbal and logical thinking before they are accepted into the police force?

In regard to witness statements about something they have heard, what training do the police have as to the research on people's ability to interpret tone/emotion in a voice they hear?

In regard to taking a witness statement, do the police have the freedom to find out about the witness's general capacity for interpretation For example to find out whether the witness might be on the autism spectrum?

What policies to the police have in place to interview a complainant with female support in the room and without a group of men present?

What training do the police have in asking a complainant probing questions without seeming to accuse her of lying, so that she can explore what happened bit by bit without shutting down? She might have remembered what she had said if this had not happened and she had not been in a group of men.

Then there is, What training to the police and CPS have about the whole range of Rape myths? (The one in question here, the myth that people who have really been raped never lie, is not listed by the CPS as it happens, or even on the Mumsnet list, even though it is written about for other rape/police advice sites. The CPS dismissed her case on credibility grounds, it seemed, in spite of all the other evidence, including the lies the alleged perpetrator told.)

What training to the police have in reading the body language when they interview an alleged perpetrator? In this case they were busy writing and did not look at what his hands were doing, and missed a probable lie about how many fingers he'd used for his act of digital anal penetration on the alleged victim (though perhaps they may have looked at the film later).

what training do the police have in interviewing with open/non-leading questions?

What training do the police have in interpreting the law? In this case the alleged perpetrator admitted digital anal penetration without previously obtaining consent, (now in law consent cannot be presumed for different events during sex) yet the police did not seem to pick up on this - it was never mentioned.

Basically though, the female Detective Constable was good as far as she got much chance. The CPS finally blocked it from going through to a trial, as is the case with a huge number of rape cases, even though she felt there was enough evidence.

I still think you have good intentions and I think you're lovely caring so much about this but I don't think you understand the justice system.

The Police thought they had enough evidence. The CPS didn't - so it wasn't that the Police didn't investigate appropriately or didn't care.

The criminal justice system has to be based on evidence and fact, not opinion or supposition. Several of the points you're making are about possibilities 'maybe she said X in her language' but you're just guessing. Maybe she would have remembered more when interviewed if X or Y happened - another guess.

That means nothing to a jury. They have to assess evidence, not ideas.

The rape myth that victims don't lie. It doesn't matter to a jury why someone may lie, they have to go on evidence and they have evidence she did lie. That does discredit her. It's unfair but it's evidence.

Body language doesn't matter in court or to a jury. The Police are very skilled in assessing body language - it doesn't mean anything in court - they have to use the statement provided. 'He said this but his body language says he's lying' is meaningless in court because it's completely objective.

Assessing witnesses ability to interpret tone is again, completely objective.

Police officers will generally have a strong sense from interpreting verbal and non-verbal communication whether someone is telling the truth. But it's only opinion and opinion means nothing in court unless an expert witness is specifically asked to give an opinion.

The Police created the best case they could and thought they had enough evidence. The CPS didn't agree because they know that rape cases are extremely difficult to prove because if it's not a stranger in a dark alley cliché, it usually comes down to 'he said, she said' and when a jury is asked to convict they can't go on an instinct or an opinion, they have to decide based on evidence and facts.

And evidence and facts in a huge majority of rape cases are hard to come by as it usually occurs without witnesses, with little physical evidence . I hate it but it's the reality.

I am not sure if you watched? I have the impression you did not. I am talking about evidence not ideas.

It is not true that recognising rape myths is not part of what can be put in front of a jury: the CPS actually lists some. The jury needs an expert witness to explain what rape myths are.

The police in this case were not watching the body language while it was taking place, and never mentioned it later. It was in the nature of the programme that they might have mentioned it but said they could not take any account of it. I was interested by that. (Personally I think interviews should be videoed and shown to a jury - after all if a jury has to see a defendant face to face, why shouldn't they see that too? But that is by the by.)

You say assessing a witness's tone is objective: no it was not in this case and what the witness said contradicted what he had said first, he had been asked a leading question, and never actually said what tone he had heard. Research also shows that interpretation is not objective or factual at the best of times, The circumstances under which it was heard meant the evidence the witness gave was especially weak, though interestingly it showed, factually enough, that the alleged rapist had specifically lied about one point.

The reason we do not know what she said, was because the police interviewed her about what she had been heard to say in such a way that they told her what she had said (that she hadn't) gave her the impression they thought she was lying. Mean while the policeman stated what a foreign man thought he had heard in such a way as it seemed factual. A good barrister could have shown that what he thought he had heard made no sense in English, and might have been Spanish words all along - that is all and that would have been fact. As it was what he thought he heard in English was factually misleading.

It seemed the female police detective thought they had enough evidence, from blood the CCTV showing how the alleged victim was afterwards compared to what she was like before and presumably the inadequately recorded bruising, but it there was other evidence not made much of, and some not recorded, and some misinterpreted and mis-reported to the CPS.

If the evidence had been more substantial as presented to the CPS, rather than some going apparently un-noticed by the police, then perhaps the CPS would have thought it was worth giving a jury the chance to decide.

Also, it did seem that the police were not quite doing what they might for example in not having photographed the bruises at the hospital, asking the alleged rapist and the witness a lot of closed questions, in questioning her in a way that was counter-productive, and in misinterpreting the evidence of a witness to the CPS.

Then there seemed to be just a rather off hand talk back and forth with the CPS on the telephone, and they had decided she was not credible.

You say their decision has to be based on evidence and fact: the police ignored some factual evidence, mis-reported some factual evidence, did not appropriately elicit some factual evidence, and the CPS decided the alleged
victim was less credible than the alleged rapist, when the rapist -his own evidence showed and the witness's showed- lied and contradicted himself.

There was the physical evidence of blood and bruising, CCTV evidence and the alleged rapist's own account.

Having watched it and all the factual evidence there was, if the CPS did not take this to court, then it is not a surprise rape prosecution statistics are what they are.

Yes I did watch it. Not as many times as you though.