Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@gyps wrote:
Why do all the men I know think they are sex gods ffs???? ………
Seriously, give a man an inch (and he probably needs it!) and he thinks he’s a frickin adonis!!!Probably for the same reasons that women think they are skilled drivers ….. give a woman driver an inch and she’ll park in it.
Oh god….. not another ‘dodgy’ thread. !!!
@Magoo wrote:
@forumhostpb wrote:
Owen the supposed list of torture methods used by Police to extract confessions is usually only limited by the imagination of the accusers. I can only speak from my own personal experience and say that I have never seen any of this and I have never even heard of Police colleagues boasting about it or discussing it in any way.
You never watched The Sweeney then!!!
God, I loved that programme – great stuff. As with all TV police series it presents a highly stylised version of reality with the ‘Guvnor’ and the ‘Skipper’ charging around all over the place in high performance cars, shooting up the bad guys and generally causing mayhem.
The reality however, is far less exciting.
@Ow£n Ka$h wrote:
@forumhostpb wrote:
I guess that this is one version of events BM. However, in the 1970’s long before Police interviews were taped and videoed, criminals routinely made confessions when confronted with evidence of their crime.
It’s also been stated by more than one person, and documented on TV, that one of the favored interview techniques was to handcuff the suspect to a chair and hold a plastic bag over his head until he confessed. :roll:
Owen the supposed list of torture methods used by Police to extract confessions is usually only limited by the imagination of the accusers. I can only speak from my own personal experience and say that I have never seen any of this and I have never even heard of Police colleagues boasting about it or discussing it in any way.
I’m NOT saying that it has never happened, but I am saying that it simply isn’t necessary for the followingg reasons:
The overwhelming majority of criminals are at the lower end of the intelligence scale and rarely if ever carefully plan their crime to include preparing a ”story” in case they are arrested. Usually a person is arrested in the vicinity of or escaping from a crime scene. Alternatively, and since most crimes are committed by ‘experienced’ criminals, Police have sufficient local intelligence to figure out who might be responsible – they know their ‘regulars’. For example burglars tend to have an MO to which they stick and this often gives them away, car thieves often use the same MO or dump a vehicle close to their homes etc etc.
A suspect is arrested and taken to a Police station. Generally they will be initially locked up in a cell awaiting interview. This isolation alone often breaks down the initial bravado that most display. They no longer have all their mates around them to support them and so on.
The interviewing officers start by being in possession of as many facts about the crime as possible – knowledge of the specific detail of the crime gives them an enormous advantage when trying to get at the truth in an interview. The suspect is then questioned in a formal atmosphere where the interviewer is seeking clear and specific answers to direct ‘open’ questions (who; what; why; when; where; how).
Believe me when I say that is is really difficult to sustain a lie convincingly when questioned in this way. A truthful person will normally have no difficulty in explaining their actions, a liar will often have to invent excuses which they find difficulty in accurately remembering later on in the interview sequence. the lie will come back later on to trap them.
As I say most criminals don’t have a carefully prepared story to account for their behaviour and slowly and gradually as the questions progress and the suspect is asked for more and more detail, anomalies in the ‘story’ appear which can be exploited by the interviewer. Eventually the suspect is verbally backed into a corner when lie after lie is exposed and they end up ”putting their hands up”. It really isn’t necesary to maltreat them to get a confession – a surprisingly high proportion of criminals end admitting their crime all by themselves, particularly when they see that continuing to lie in the face of evidence is pointless.
As an example, take the tired old excuse from a suspect caught with a stolen item in their possession. The usual (and boring) story is that they quite legitimately bought it from a bloke in a pub and didn’t know it was stolen.
So we need to break this story down into its constituent parts and trap the suspect by forcing them to make up a whole story on the fly to substantiate the basic ‘bloke in a pub’ story. The devil is always in the detail.
….. what was the name of the pub?? where was it?,…. when were you there (day and time)?….. how did you travel there?…. who was with you?….. did you chat to anybody in the pub when you went in and if so who?….. what did you talk about with them?……. what did you have to drink? …… how many drinks did you have whilst you were there?….. how did you pay for the drinks?……. how much money did you have on you when you went to this pub?…… how and where did you get this money?…… what work do you do?….. how much do you earn (net take home pay)?…..and so on. All this stuff is gone into long before you get round to the bit the suspect is actually expecting you to ask i.e. how much did you pay for the article and who was the bloke you bought it from.
This type of detail is rarely if ever prepared in advance by a suspect so as they lie and make stuff up, their answers become more and more unconvincing, they trip up over the details and frequently contradict themselves. Sooner of later most of them realise that the story has become utterly hopeless and the give in and admit the crime (Section 1 Theft or dishonest handling).
This technique does not require ANY form of coercion by Police, indeed a sympathetic interviewer will often get much further with a suspect than an aggressive one.
Later, and long after the interview, admission and charging sequence, the criminal has a chance to think things through more clearly and then concoct a story to explain their actions. Their brief will often get them to withdraw their incriminating statement, with the tired old story that it was beaten out of them, so that they can plead not guilty at Court.
Yesssss ”The Hoff” rocks. But why didn’t he pull all three girls ??? Must be getting tired :lol: :lol: :lol:
(Awaits second electronic P45)
I guess that this is one version of events BM. However, in the 1970’s long before Police interviews were taped and videoed, criminals routinely made confessions when confronted with evidence of their crime.
Equally routinely they then withdrew these confessions once they had been advised by their briefs and this often left Police with pretty thin forensic evidence to fall back on.
I have had this happen to me personally, and I can tell you that it is bloody frustrating too.
This whole ‘confess then withdraw’ scenario became such a farce that eventually Police taped (and later on videoed) interviews and confessions specifically to counter this tactic. Every criminal that ever there was againly routinely alleged that Police beat confessions out of them or subjected them to some sort of ‘torture’.
Yes, I am aware that prisoners have been beaten up in the cells – this was usually reserved for child molesters or rapists – but in the overwhelming majority of cases this simply didn’t happen.
@Magoo wrote:
The terrorists dug a tunnel, got through to the other side, killed a couple of enemy terrorists whilst losing a couple of their own terrorists and grabbed a third terrorist to take him as hostage. Sounds pretty cut and dried to me to. And of course I/we know there is no proof regarding Govt. knowledge. But it looks good to accuse in reading huh? :wink:
Well my analysis has the benfit of being logical if nothing else.
You have to remember that the Israeli Army is an extremely professional and well trained one. They are most certaily NOT a pushover in anybody’s terms. The Palestinian terrorists managed to make a surprise attack right under the Israeli’s noses – literally – and pressed home their attack with courage and determination. They took out a tank and an APC and damned nearly captured a watchtower that dominated the whole area. If they had achieved THAT oibjective then they could have wrought major havoc all along that part of the border. It was only by sheer luck that the soldiers manning the watchtower managed to beat off the terrorists.
This operation was meticulously planned and well executed and it took a lot of balls to carry it out. The attackers had to have been pretty skilled to do this, which precludes them from being a group of local farmers getting their own back or whatever.
This is why I say that the action must have been sanctioned at high level within Hamas.
@Magoo wrote:
…….And can you send me some kind of link that has the Hamas Govt. absolutely knowing in advance about the action taken? I’d be interested to see your story stand up with proof.
Naturally there is no link and no ”proof” – as I suspect you knew all along. However, my speculation is based both on common sense, logical deduction, and some minor knowledge of military operations.
The terrorists dug a tunnel starting some distance from their side of the border fence and which emerged some 300 yards into Israeli territory, pretty close to a 24/7 manned watch tower. It had to have taken several days of digging to do this. The attackers were members of the ‘military wing’ of Hamas (see previous posts).
Given the logistics of tunnelling; the sheer numbers of people involved both in the clandestine digging and the removal of the spoil; the planning and preparation of this very professionally executed raid; and the high military skill levels of the terrorist attackers (i.e. they wern’t just simple farmers etc etc); it is highly unlikely that Hamas didn’t know a thing about this until it was all over.
True, the senior Government officers may not have had ‘personal’ knowledge, but I think the Americans call this ”plausible deniability” don’t they???
Surprisingly enough (so far anyway) in spite of totalling some bridges and a couple of power stations, there have been NO Palestinian casualties at all. What a pity as Hamas could have got some great pictures in the Media to support their quest for publicity.
Aparently the Israelis have also arrested/detained the Hamas Labour Minister and are holding him pending ”charges”. I wonder what involvement a Government Minister has in terrorism??? No doubt all will be revealed in due course.
Meanwhile I bet all the revolutionary Marxists are just gagging to produce ”historical evidence” to tell us all how the terrorists were ”justified” in their illegal action; how they were provoked into doing it; how it was in retaliation for something or other; and so on and so forth.
@Magoo wrote:
Well going in to save a soldier and another hostage that is now being held is a mighty good excuse to kill a few more Palestinians and to pull the wool over some outside observers eyes.
Yes i think you’re right there. But the Hamas leadership, who knew well in advance all about the attack their terrorists made on Israeli territory, must surely have known that there would be massive retaliation.
however, I don’t think that a kidnap as such was planned. The terrorists wanted to attack and kill as many Israelis as possible then run for it back across the border. Snatching a hostage must have been done on the spur of the moment, given the circumstances. This might explain why the Hamas leadership was apparently wrong footed initially and denied all knowledge oe of the entire incident.
Shoot and kill a few soldiers then run for it…. who really cares??? Kidnap a soldier and you invite the wrath of the Israeli Army down on you. Looks like the Palestinians are now going to have to pay the price for the over enthusiasm of a few terrorists.
