The CPS would probably be attempting to get the non-cooperative complainant’s first account on the body worn video into evidence under the exception to the rule against hearsay (out of court statements) known as “res gestae”. In summary - although out of court statements are generally ruled inadmissible, there are exceptions and one is where the utterance is spontaneous and so close in time and proximity to the shocking event that it was an involuntary exclamation which was unlikely to be tainted and therefore is reliable. BWV footage is often some time after the event (ie: when the police turn up half an hour later) and so is not an involuntary utterance close in time to the shocking event and so it’s introduction as res gestae can often be resisted. Recently, however, the appellate courts have been stretching that and a statement made an hour and a half later was deemed to be res gestae. Each case is different and always dependent on its facts and so you can’t set a time limit. Short article on it here (not mine): https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.2drj.com/single-post/2017/05/24/Res-gestae-in-domestic-abuse-cases
Her parents have now released a statement written by her self apparently but her advisers told her not to make it public, she states that the blood was hers in the room and that it was an accident, yes there was an argument but no assault , seems fairly easy to investigate who’s blood it was isn’t it?
Interesting. Even if the police/CPS hadn’t tested it (limited resources), her lawyers could have obtained access to any samples that had been taken. Plus, of course, I would imagine that account is somewhat different to the statement the boyfriend made at the time.
She posted online Instagram. It stated 'But I am not a domestic abuser. We had an argument and an accident happened. An accident. The blood that someone SOLD to a newspaper was MY blood and that was something very sad and very personal' Interpretate that as you will.
How did “somebody” get access to that blood then to sell, ie..stolen .. Which newspaper paid for it ie in the knowledge what it was , ie handling stolen goods..
Good point (if it’s true), and if a body part or fluid can be stolen as a matter of law An interesting aside is that I seem to remember that unless a human body part has had some sort of special process applied to it, it is not “property” and so can’t be stolen or submit to criminal damage. I have a vague recollection of this because as part of my Bar exams (14 years ago now) I had to write an opinion on the possible offences committed by a rector who was molesting a corpse in his chapel of rest. I’ve just had a quick google but I can’t find any relevant info as the search results are swamped by stories about kidney theft and 18th century grave robbing.
