I recently had a run in with a large African lady and police contacted me yesterday to say they believed they had her in custody. However, due to the Tribal Markings on her face her solicitor felt an ID parade would prejudice my judgement (what he really meant was the rather obvious markings would make my NOT IDing her impossible!) So the officers arrived at my home with a PC and images, including this womanâs, ALL bearing her Tribal Markings!
If she had had orange hair would it have been the same argument?
Anyone got any idea of the legality of this?
She WILL be convicted, although I failed to pick her out, she was caught on CCTV carrying out a similar crime to the one involving me.
Does anyone else find this statement a bit odd? Surely the whole point of an identikit is that it is publicly released in order to help identify suspects. Logically therefore if there is an error in the picture, it should be noted.
I can see it now, Crimewatch 2007
Sex: Not disclosed for Sexism reasons
Ethnicity: Not disclosed for Rasism reasons
Age: Not disclosed for Ageist reasons
Dress: Not disclosed for Chavist reasons
Identifying features - None
The police need to look no further than Russ Mael out of 80's electro-muzak supergroup Sparks.
I can see the the line up now, 6 quasi hitler/chaplin lookalikes all humming "This town aint big enough for the both of us"
Book him Danno, he's going down 5 to 10 in the big house!!
(what he really meant was the rather obvious markings would make my NOT IDing her impossible!) So the officers arrived at my home with a PC and images, including this womanâs, ALL bearing her Tribal Markings!...although I failed to pick her out