Rapist jailed after police errors delayed his capture

[detective-boy]

I think the issue here was the conduct of Operation Bobcat - they had a series of serious sex offences and started an investigation. As part of that they took DNA samples with consent from people coming to light for lesser offences (such as peeping toms) for which the law did not allow compulsory samples to be taken, including this one.

As the series of offences was believed to have stopped, the investigation sort of drifted into nothingness it seems, with the samples taken (including this one) not being progressed. They were however, stored (probably in an overcrowded station fridge full of other forgotten samples!).

When the series started up again, Operation Bobcat was reviewed and it was decided to send off all the stored samples and, Bingo!, a match was made.

In effect, therefore, the police managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If it hadn't been for their decision to take samples beyond the compulsory ones, it would not have existed. If they had either continued Operation Bobcat, or closed it down properly, the sample would have been tested. Instead they just let it drift.

In doing so they effectively allowed the suspects DNA to be retained unlawfully (i.e. in excess of his consent) and it seems there were investigative failures in relation to Operation Bobcat as it was neither continued nor properly closed down. That happens an awful lot due to individual failures of investigating officers but, more usually, simply due to pressure of work - if you get a new investigation then that is always going to take priority over tidying up a closed one and putting it away.

In reality, if Operation Bobcat had been put away properly I suspect the untested voluntary samples would / should have been destroyed without testing! So, in effect, the fuck-up actually led to the damning evidence being preserved when it shouldn't have been.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Either way that sounds like a pretty big fuck up as you're saying that if proper procedures had happened (either case carried on or properly closed) then the DNA would have been tested and this would have stopped women being attacked/raped. That's a pretty big fuck up isn't it? Worth more than "a word" surely?

 

[detective-boy]

That's a pretty big fuck up isn't it? Worth more than "a word" surely?

I'd have thought so ... but my point is that it's nowhere near as clear cut as the initial reports suggest and it is actually very unlikely that there is any officer involved with the actual sample at all who did anything wrong.

As with many things, the problem is organisational, not individual. The police, as an organisation, need a serious revamp. A bit of BPR (Business Process Re-Engineering). If any one person is to blame it is likely to be someone who made a policy decision, not someone who acted on it.

The people given words of advice sound like the officers who acted on it and so, words of advice may well be appropriate for their culpability. The person who made it may not even be identifiable (especially if it was not a single policy decision but a combination of the application of several).

 

[TAE]

So, on that basis, the rapist would still be at large?

Quite possibly, but you should know my view on these things by now.

He was not even charged at the time and I do not think that DNA from people who are not even charged should be kept (unless the person freely agrees in writing). If you want to argue against that then the only logical alternative is what that judge suggested: Put everyone on the DNA database. I thought you were against that.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'd have thought so ... but my point is that it's nowhere near as clear cut as the initial reports suggest and it is actually very unlikely that there is any officer involved with the actual sample at all who did anything wrong.

So once again the police don't do anything to anyone on the basis that it can't be any one individuals responsibility. What a surprise.

 

[detective-boy]

Quite possibly, but you should know my view on these things by now.

I agree with your position - it just amused me that, starting from there, you were effectively criticising the police for not invading someone's privacy enough!

 

[detective-boy]

So once again the police don't do anything to anyone on the basis that it can't be any one individuals responsibility.

But in any organisation there are complex policies and procedures, many of which overlap or even contradict each other.

If a member of staff is clearly in the wrong then, of course, it is right that they should be identified and sanctioned appropriately.

But, if they are not solely responsible it is not right that they should be scapegoated for the failings of the organisation as a whole. I would have thought you would agree with that proposition?

That is not to say the organisation should not be sanctioned. Or that the leader of the organisation, or some senior member of it should not resign. Or that steps should be taken to reform the organisation to ensure that such a thing could not happen again. But they are all different.

 

[TAE]

Yes, I think 'organisational failure = senior member resigning' makes sense.

I agree with your position - it just amused me that, starting from there, you were effectively criticising the police for not invading someone's privacy enough!

Yes, it amused me too, that's why I made my general views clear.


If you look at my posts on this thread I was just saying that the police should have followed procedure. Whether or not I agree with the procedure is another matter.

 

[detective-boy]

If you look at my posts on this thread I was just saying that the police should have followed procedure. Whether or not I agree with the procedure is another matter.

I think if it was a simple procedure which was not followed, it wold be clear who had not followed it ... but it seems it was an investigative line of enquiry which simply petered out. If anyone was at fault, it should be the Senior Investigating Officer of the operation ... though it could have been that initially it was just put on hold when no more offences were reported and that situation was just alllowed to persist without any conscious decision one way or the other ...

 

[cockneyrebel]

But in any organisation there are complex policies and procedures, many of which overlap or even contradict each other.

If a member of staff is clearly in the wrong then, of course, it is right that they should be identified and sanctioned appropriately.

But, if they are not solely responsible it is not right that they should be scapegoated for the failings of the organisation as a whole. I would have thought you would agree with that proposition?

That is not to say the organisation should not be sanctioned. Or that the leader of the organisation, or some senior member of it should not resign. Or that steps should be taken to reform the organisation to ensure that such a thing could not happen again. But they are all different.

But your last paragraph is the point. The senior figures never take responsibility and never resign. Quite often they just go on to further promotions.

 

[detective-boy]

But your last paragraph is the point. The senior figures never take responsibility and never resign. Quite often they just go on to further promotions.

I have no problem with that concept at all. Senior officers / managers should take responsibility for what happens on their watch (within reason), even if they don't have any individual, personal responsibility for it. Resignation seems to have somewhat disappeared from the leadership manual.