Moral dilemma

September 15, 2006

As some of you know, I'm a former CID officer and my policing career spanned a few years of the Life on Mars/Sweeney type era but mostly I spent my time in the new 'enlighted' (PC?) approach to policing.

This is based upon a real case (names changed) and I apologise for the length of the story. But I wonder, if you were the DI in charge, what decision would you make faced with the following circumstances:

There had been a spate of violent rapes in the City, with prostitutes being the main, but not only, targets. The violence used had increased with intensity, culminating in the murder of a prostitute, with evidence that she had been tortured by her assailant before being strangled.

The MO was the same every time. In the case of the prostitute, the rapist would pretent to be a punter and take her to a secluded place where he would rape her. She would then be bound and tortured - I won't provide details because they're too gory - suffice to say that all the victims were hospitalised with major internal injuries.

He would wear a condom and wash his victims with disinfectant, including all her body hair, when he'd finished. He'd trim their nails, strip them of their clothes then dump them naked in the countryside, regardless of the weather. All the victims were confused about the mans appearance but we knew that he was a local man of average height, brown/blond hair, sometimes bearded, between 30 and 40, softly spoken who seemed to have access to numerous types of car but used vans or estate cars mostly. There was no pattern to his attacks and there was no forensic evidence left at the crime scene, when and if the victim could remember where the attack took place.

You head the Task Force set up 9 months ago to catch him. You've just got home after a long shift when you receive a phone call to tell you that another body has been found and its believed that the murderer/rapist had struck again. In this case, the victim was a off-duty nurse 22 yrs, of unblemished character who left work at 11pm the night before and whose body was discovered 20 miles away by a farmer worker going to work.

A witness, another nurse, states that she saw her colleague talking to the occupant of a white van but, as it was dark, couldn't tell whether the driver was male or female. She did remember that it had writing or a logo on its side panel.

In enquires like this, you receive all sorts of phone calls from members of the public, mostly sincere but some malicious. However, one

in particular is flagged for your attention. A female caller, very nervous, suggests that we check out a 'John Smith' as she believed him to be the murderer. What catches your attention is the fact that she states that he's the manager of a local commercial vehicle repairs centre, which would mean he had access to all types of vehicles.

You go to the garage and speak to Mr Smith. Although not yet under arrest, this softly spoken local man is nervous to the point of sweating and unable to substantiate his movements the previous night. One of your colleagues calls you to the workshop. In the car jet wash bay is a white van with a company's logo on the side. The van had been jet washed - both outside and in. On approaching the back of the van you detect a faint smell of disinfectant. In the glove box, you find a bottle of disinfectant and nail clippers both of which have been cleaned. In the workshop, you find a broom with half the handle sawn off and some of the victims claimed to have been assaulted with a wooden club.

You believe that you have caught the murderer so you arrest him formally, seize the van as evidence and take him to the police station. During the course of the interview, the man makes no comment and refuses to answer any questions.

A forensic search of his house and belongings provides no evidence at all. You find that he's changed his name by deed poll and his real name was 'John Jones' who had convictions for assault against females.

Your hopes hang on there being forensic evidence in the van but the scientists are pessimistic because of the cleaning by jet wash. They intend to start the forensic search the following morning, as its now 3am. You have custody of the van's keys.

You really believe that you have caught the man responsible for two murders and one that will no doubt kill again. You feel that it is your responsibility to protect women from him. But the rules say that you do not have sufficient evidence and that means that, in a few hours time, you will have to let him go. He will be free to move anywhere he wants, without restriction, even abroad if he wishes.

Then you remember that you brought that last victims hairbrush in to enable DNA confirmation of her identity. The brush with thousands of strands of the victims hair carrying her DNA is in a bag in your draw, the keys to the suspects van on on your desk. The van is parked in the (unlit) police pound which you have access to.

The man is the murderer, all your years as a detective tell you that. But, shortly, you will have to let him go, probably to rape and murder again. However, if you sneaked a couple of strands of the victims hair into the van to be found by the scientists, you could charge and remand him into custody. There is simply no other evidence other than circumstantial - not enough to convict him.

So the moral dilemma is: Are some things worth breaking the rules for? Would you bend the rules and put your career and liberty at risk to potentially to save a woman's life? Or would you just shrug your shoulders, say 'rules are rules' and let him go.

Apologies for the length of the story but it is basically a true one. I know the outcome of this particular case and I'll let you know what happened if any of you are interested.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Phil C

Spion kop · September 15, 2006