BoxRec

That's a grand theory liam and it doesn't really describe the world we live in.

palooka wrote:Someone did it so not everyone is innocent.

my initial thought also, but he said the suspect. Could be a totally different person.

The real point to take in from this in my opinion is that you can get seriously hurt getting involved with these fcking, value-less mugs - even if you're a fit boxer, which is a bit disconcerting as most of us probably like to think that we would "act".
I think better policies on crime are in order, such as longer sentences and bringing back borstals.

No matter how it may look, smell, feel and sound, until you have given your suspect the opportunity to come in and explain themselves, you're just guessing. anything can happen in an interview;

1. they come in and immediately confess
2 they do that, yet it may turn out that they are taking the blame for a friend/family member
3. they try to establish a cover story, and succeed
4. they try that, and incriminate themselves without realising
5. they "no comment" all the way through
6. the interview is cancelled for any number of reasons, sometimes whilst it is underway
7. you or your colleague make a procedural mistake and render the entire interview null and void
8. they don't turn up (hard to do if you've been arrested, admittedly)
9. they give good information that can progress the investigation but go on to prove themselves unreliable or untrustworthy, thereby undermining the credibility of the nugget of info they gave you

There are so many variables, it is impossible to cover them all. the first interview is a fact finding exercise, if the suspect is indeed your man you may not have a confession or the evidence but you would certainly have a stronger gut instinct and you know where to target your enquiries. but until they have sat down and talked for the first time its just guessing.

i dunno what has happened in the crolla case but if the person who did it was interviewed, denied everything and gave an alibi for that date/time, the alibi has to be checked out. if you don't disprove the alibi (which is hard to do) then you've gone and strengthened their potential defence because the alibi excuse has been tested, and could not be disproven. it can be very, very tricky. bad people get away with crime a lot. we live in a liberal society and they have lots and lots of rights.

JimJim2009 wrote:No matter how it may look, smell, feel and sound, until you have given your suspect the opportunity to come in and explain themselves, you're just guessing. anything can happen in an interview;

1. they come in and immediately confess
2 they do that, yet it may turn out that they are taking the blame for a friend/family member
3. they try to establish a cover story, and succeed
4. they try that, and incriminate themselves without realising
5. they "no comment" all the way through
6. the interview is cancelled for any number of reasons, sometimes whilst it is underway
7. you or your colleague make a procedural mistake and render the entire interview null and void
8. they don't turn up (hard to do if you've been arrested, admittedly)
9. they give good information that can progress the investigation but go on to prove themselves unreliable or untrustworthy, thereby undermining the credibility of the nugget of info they gave you

There are so many variables, it is impossible to cover them all. the first interview is a fact finding exercise, if the suspect is indeed your man you may not have a confession or the evidence but you would certainly have a stronger gut instinct and you know where to target your enquiries. but until they have sat down and talked for the first time its just guessing.

i dunno what has happened in the crolla case but if the person who did it was interviewed, denied everything and gave an alibi for that date/time, the alibi has to be checked out. if you don't disprove the alibi (which is hard to do) then you've gone and strengthened their potential defence because the alibi excuse has been tested, and could not be disproven. it can be very, very tricky. bad people get away with crime a lot. we live in a liberal society and they have lots and lots of rights.

You mean detainees have rights, whether they are good detainees or bad ones.

The rights are to ensure the innocent are not wrongly convicted and the state forces and agency don't abuse their position of power. There is nothing unreasonable about any of the current rights afforded to detainees.

The rights detainees have are a direct response to police and prosecution abuses in the past. One innocent person wrongly convicted is one too many. We are a civilised society with checks and balances in place.

If you think we are too liberal just wait until you are arrested for an offence that you haven't committed....

You've read too much into my last comment in the post i made.

i was arrested for something i didn't do, 20 years ago, as it happens.

i disagree with you saying there's nothing unreasonable about the status quo; cases collapse on technicalities and that is wrong because the perpetrator can walk free and that means more innocent people may suffer from his/her activities.

the retired murder detective who did my PACE training told me of a case in the 1970's in the north east, where they knew a guy had murdered two women. they had very solid evidence and expected no other outcome but a conviction. there was a technical flaw in procedure - of the administrative nature, not of "lets beat the confession out of him", and he walked free, and promptly disappeared. He never resurfaced, and the officers on that case always wondered, when another woman was murdered in that neck of the woods and no killer was ever found.

JimJim2009 wrote:You've read too much into my last comment in the post i made.

i was arrested for something i didn't do, 20 years ago, as it happens.

i disagree with you saying there's nothing unreasonable about the status quo; cases collapse on technicalities and that is wrong because the perpetrator can walk free and that means more innocent people may suffer from his/her activities.

the retired murder detective who did my PACE training told me of a case in the 1970's in the north east, where they knew a guy had murdered two women. they had very solid evidence and expected no other outcome but a conviction. there was a technical flaw in procedure - of the administrative nature, not of "lets beat the confession out of him", and he walked free, and promptly disappeared. He never resurfaced, and the officers on that case always wondered, when another woman was murdered in that neck of the woods and no killer was ever found.

There is no such thing as a perfect system, but for the one story you mention from the 1970s i can quote you a number of cases where owing to a lack of procedure, checks and objective accountability people have been wrongly convicted because of improper policing. Its a balancing act.

Tell me about specific, individual cases collapsing on technicalities and then i can comment, but i don't accept as a general sweeping suggestion that serious crimes get dropped because of trivial technicalities.

Generally the court would need to be satisfied that the Police/CPS had breached the particular law/code and then a decision would have to be made as to whether the defendant suffered such detriment as to render proceedings unfair. Its all very reasonable and quite simple; Police and CPS do you jobs properly.

PACE offers some protection for those at the mercy of plod. Plod cannot be trusted. The "job" attracts a certain type, the type who claims to "know" someone has committed a crime without having a shred of evidence, let alone proof, that they have. This is the attitude that led to, and still leads to, miscarriages of justice. Any and every accused person is entitled to due process.

Sorry fella could you explain what PACE training is?

its there to stop innocent people being fitted up. the tragic case of stefan kisko - arguably the worst miscarriage of justice we've had wouldn't have happened if PACE had been law back then. Police and Criminal Evidence legislation governing how suspects are interviewed/treated etc.

Terry Dooley wrote:I've just had a coffee with Crolla, he said he already knew that the guy they got wasn't one of his attackers.

How is Crolla's health doing mate? Hope he is making a speedy recovery.

Be nice if fast eddie dipped his hands in his pockets and offered a cash reward for information on the attackers.

Pretty sure someone would grass them in if that did happen.

The people who do houses are low on the criminal food chain - usually because they are not the brightest.

Sooner or later one of them will be bladdered or off their heads and start telling people.

bripez wrote:I don't get it - I assume that the police didn't just arrest some random and that they had some reason to arrest this person in the first place ?

Also, I would have thought that Crolla could identify the person? (Unless he has chosen not too - which would be strange as he chose to get involved in the situation)

Eye witness testimony isn't enough to get a conviction. Far too many variables involved.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

bripez wrote:I don't get it - I assume that the police didn't just arrest some random and that they had some reason to arrest this person in the first place ?

Also, I would have thought that Crolla could identify the person? (Unless he has chosen not too - which would be strange as he chose to get involved in the situation)

Eye witness testimony isn't enough to get a conviction. Far too many variables involved.

Yeha in this circumstance his memory would be brought into question given he received a serious head injury.

Another scenario is that some pisshead / low grade wrong un started boasting that he'd 'done' Crolla to try and boost his 'standing' amongst degenerate toe rags.... The police picked up in the chatter, brought the guy in.... But the guys was just lying to sound big after a cOuplemof special brews and a crack rock.

Terry Dooley wrote:None of the above. They got him based on his description, but Crolla said he's 100% not the guy.

Rubbish. Police don't just approach someone because of a 'description'. The average suspect 'description' would probably cover 10% of UK.

Police need more information to make an arrest. A lead, a rumour, some evidence, a statement. Utter BS what you say.

MAybe there's a reason Crolla didn't want to confirm the suspect? Maybe it's more than a burglary?

The fact you spoke to Crolla then come up with this bvllh1t story indicates there is much, much more to the incident.

Terry Dooley wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:

Terry Dooley wrote:None of the above. They got him based on his description, but Crolla said he's 100% not the guy.

Rubbish. Police don't just approach someone because of a 'description'. The average suspect 'description' would probably cover 10% of UK.

Police need more information to make an arrest. A lead, a rumour, some evidence, a statement. Utter BS what you say.

MAybe there's a reason Crolla didn't want to confirm the suspect? Maybe it's more than a burglary?

The fact you spoke to Crolla then come up with this bvllh1t story indicates there is much, much more to the incident.

No it doesn't. Just like there wasn't more to Moore. They got the wrong guy and that's the long and short of it. I'm sorry if that's not salacious, but it is true.

jamie moore situation sounds as dodgy as. boxing fans may think one of their own is an angel but 'former boxer shot in early hours drug hit' sounds like a perfectly reasonable headline.

think about it:

kell brook: "oooh i were just chatting to a guy and he stabbed me"
no offender caught or reasonable description so the offender could be caught and give his side of the story.

jamie moore: "oooh i were just walking out of a party when a russian stranger shot me"
no offender caught or reasonable description so the offender could be caught and give his side of the story.

anthony crolla: "oooh i were chasing a burglar and he whacked me with a slab of concrete"

i wish someone would dig around and get the real story instead of doing the PR routine.
1. boxer gets done over in suspect circumstances
2. Stories come out stating boxer was innocent in a terrible mistake
3. Road to recovery bull
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

veriton wrote:

Terry Dooley wrote:
No it doesn't. Just like there wasn't more to Moore. They got the wrong guy and that's the long and short of it. I'm sorry if that's not salacious, but it is true.

jamie moore situation sounds as dodgy as. boxing fans may think one of their own is an angel but 'former boxer shot in early hours drug hit' sounds like a perfectly reasonable headline.


jamie moore: "oooh i were just walking out of a party when a russian stranger shot me"
no offender caught or reasonable description so the offender could be caught and give his side of the story.

The mistake Moore made was to be naive enough to spend time in the company of one of Europe's richest and most notorious drugs families and assume he would be safe.

Moore was mistaken for one of the Kinahan's main enforcers (both shaven headed and similar builds).

The gun men set up Kavannagh a few weeks later and made sure they got the right man the second time around.

This man is the reason Moore got shot in Marbella - a case of mistaken identity...

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-ne ... ad-4178185

veriton wrote:
jamie moore situation sounds as dodgy as. boxing fans may think one of their own is an angel but 'former boxer shot in early hours drug hit' sounds like a perfectly reasonable headline.

think about it:

kell brook: "oooh i were just chatting to a guy and he stabbed me"
no offender caught or reasonable description so the offender could be caught and give his side of the story.

jamie moore: "oooh i were just walking out of a party when a russian stranger shot me"
no offender caught or reasonable description so the offender could be caught and give his side of the story.

anthony crolla: "oooh i were chasing a burglar and he whacked me with a slab of concrete"

i wish someone would dig around and get the real story instead of doing the PR routine.
1. boxer gets done over in suspect circumstances
2. Stories come out stating boxer was innocent in a terrible mistake
3. Road to recovery bull
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Seems like you just crave conspiracy!

not really, but i do get bored with the lazy crap that gets passed off as news these days.

it's all taking the main protagonists word at face value, then spinning into some "bright look at the future" "back from adversity" "this made me stronger" bellfest.

veriton wrote:not really, but i do get bored with the lazy crap that gets passed off as news these days.

it's all taking the main protagonists word at face value, then spinning into some "bright look at the future" "back from adversity" "this made me stronger" bellfest.

so what is your reading of the Moore shooting then Veriton. Since day one Moore has always stated it was a case of mistaken identity and the subsequent execution of Kavanagh supports this version of events entirely.

Do you think Moore was the original target of the gunmen then? What was he in your view? Some master criminal from Salford who's dodgy past had finally caught up with him??..

some people live in fantasy land on here!

TerribleTerry wrote:

veriton wrote:not really, but i do get bored with the lazy crap that gets passed off as news these days.

it's all taking the main protagonists word at face value, then spinning into some "bright look at the future" "back from adversity" "this made me stronger" bellfest.

so what is your reading of the Moore shooting then Veriton. Since day one Moore has always stated it was a case of mistaken identity and the subsequent execution of Kavanagh supports this version of events entirely.

Do you think Moore was the original target of the gunmen then? What was he in your view? Some master criminal from Salford who's dodgy past had finally caught up with him??..

some people live in fantasy land on here!

That's it mate....nailed it for me.

I genuinely believe Crolla just did the decent thing and for his bravery sadly he suffered a very bad injury, that's it.....no more no less.

I think he acted on instinct like a lot of people would and now has some people on here analysing it so that now somehow its his fault?

Maybe, just maybe, its exactly as he said it?? could it be that the lad is actually telling the truth?

from what I read I think Anthony said he climbed a wall to get after them and as he was distracted by doing this, one of them as picked up a loose slab from atop the wall and dropped/ thrown it on his head.

How would other people deal with a pair of burglars spotted trying to gain access to your or your neighbours' property - out of interest?

For a start - and this makes me sound naive but I'd be a little bit thrown to discover there were two of them, as in your mind burglars are solitary individuals. I like to think I'd detain at least one of them (two is probably nigh on impossible) and keep him for the police. I'd probably offer him a brew - I ain't gonna kick him about like Dirty Harry. If the Cops couldn't muster themselves within 30 minutes (unlikely) then I'd probably let him go with a stern word of advice not to let me see him in my - or anyone else's - area at that time again.

From the highest point of his career, to being plunged to an all-time low thanks to a good deed for his neighbour, Anthony Crolla is fighting back to gain what is rightfully his.

1000 words of unchallenged quotes all wrapped up with a sweet ending. I can see it all now and I'm a subscriber. I hope Im surprised (but I havent read a negative - real - story yet)

Terry Dooley wrote:None of the above. They got him based on his description, but Crolla said he's 100% not the guy.

So you're basically telling us that the police picked up a random guy on a description that Crolla gave the police, after he'd been smashed in head and presumably Ko'd or at least head scrambled? And in the dark!? He would barely have got a decent look at the burglar.

And you're trying to tell us that on the strength of that 'description' they picked someone up?

And as you say Crolla says he knew it wasn't the right guy; which means they must've held an ID parade? Was that mentioned? And how did he know that the 'suspected individual' wasn't the right guy?

He wouldn't know who the suspect actually was if there was an ID parade.

I'm not saying it wasn't what you were told Terry, but it's hardly a conspiracy theory of Icke Royal Lizard proportions to suggest the full truth is not bring told.