[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

Pyramid, I am merely saying that the police had sufficient justification to take him in for questioning and they are perfectly within their scope of power to do so - he was detained within the prescribed time limits then released. Of course her BF had a key but presumably his alibi was watertight, whereas the Landlord's was not.

I don't believe I suggested they didn't have sufficient justification,nor that the police weren't within their scope of power to do so Angus. What I did say was that they have not any enough evidence to charge the man. Being a suspect doesn't mean the person is guilty.

Being on the property, having a key to the flat, not having a good enough alibi other than possibly being in on his own that fatal night - might simply have been enough for the police to bring him in for questioning, given that they clearly have not a clue what or who they are looking for, can't determine a murder weapon, where it happened, when, if she ate the pizza or not, was it a burglary or not.

As I say, it's assumption only that Joanna herself did not have a copy of a key made and gave to someone that Greg was unaware of. For all we know, Greg could have had a key made and gave it to a.n.other to do the dirty deed.... No one knows, therefore that too, reamains a possibility -no matter how slim.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I don't believe I suggested they didn't have sufficient justification,nor that the police weren't within their scope of power to do so Angus. What I did say was that they have not any enough evidence to charge the man. Being a suspect doesn't mean the person is guilty.

Being on the property, having a key to the flat, not having a good enough alibi other than possibly being in on his own that fatal night - might simply have been enough for the police to bring him in for questioning, given that they clearly have not a clue what or who they are looking for, can't determine a murder weapon, where it happened, when, if she ate the pizza or not, was it a burglary or not.

As I say, it's assumption only that Joanna herself did not have a copy of a key made and gave to someone that Greg was unaware of. For all we know, Greg could have had a key made and gave it to a.n.other to do the dirty deed.... No one knows, therefore that too, reamains a possibility -no matter how slim.

Somehow I think we're talking at cross purposes here - in response to Arista's post that he was contemplating suing the police, I originally stated that he has no case against the police since they were perfectly within their rights to arrest him with sufficient, albeit circumstantial, suspicions and question him within a prescribed time limit. He has been released without charge after their investigations, so he has no case against them. He has no basis to sue for "wrongful arrest".

The scurrilous media campaign against him - now that's a different story. I hope he sues the pants off them, and all the individuals who crawled out of the woodwork to put the boot in.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

Somehow I think we're talking at cross purposes here - in response to Arista's post that he was contemplating suing the police, I originally stated that he has no case against the police since they were perfectly within their rights to arrest him with sufficient, albeit circumstantial, suspicions and question him within a prescribed time limit. He has been released without charge after their investigations, so he has no case against them. He has no basis to sue for "wrongful arrest".

The scurrilous media campaign against him - now that's a different story. I hope he sues the pants off them, and all the individuals who crawled out of the woodwork to put the boot in.

Cross purposes - maybes aye, maybes no !!

I read that he was looking at the view of suing for wrongful arrest - I would imagine that his lawyers will be advising him in respect of what precisely constitues. As only he, the police and his lawyers will be aware if they did in fact have 'reasonable grounds' for his arrest. The police may have a lot more under their belt that just him being the landlord and having a key: they may not. The police may feel they had sufficient grounds, clearly CJ thinks otherwise - and perhaps so too, will his legal team? Only time will tell on that matter.

]
Wrongful Arrest (nicked from google)
Otherwise known as unlawful arrest and detention may result in damages payable to the victim for false imprisonment. If the police have acted outside their legitimate powers by detaining someone who has not been subjected to a lawful arrest and interfered with that persons liberty, the police officer may be acting outside the scope of his duty. When making an arrest, a police officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence is being committed, or is about to be committed and if an arrest is made outside these grounds then a police officer will have acted outside his legal powers and may well be liable to pay damages for false imprisonment.

With regards to the way he was portrayed and libelled by the media, and slandered by some others - if he is indeed innocent - I'd be doing all I could to sue those responsible for blackening my name in the way the did with CJ.