Thank you for all your trouble.
I gather from the thread that the voice is Peter Tatchell's. I don't share his views on things generally, but I have to say, he does a good job with the narration in my opinion and the video is interesting and informative. It puts me in the picture, if you'll pardon the pun.
As for the thread, unfortunately I don't have time to wade through a lengthy thread like that and I can quickly see that most of it consists of disruption and goading posts from anti-Bamber people, so I'll stick to reading your own posts on it, skipping the rest. I am not biased in the Bamber case. I just want to read about the evidence and facts and come to my own conclusions.
That is, unfortunately, the playbook of most anti Bamber posters. Most are here to disrupt rather than discuss.
The non disclosure thread being a particularly egregious example of the disruptive tactics employed to derail informative debates. It is impossible to view the gradual removal of negatives over the years and the circumstances and timing surrounding those removals as anything but sinister.
The destruction and withholding of evidence over the years has been deliberate and seems specifically targeted and timed which makes it difficult to accept innocent explanations for the destruction/removal.
As an example; the Peter Tatchell narrated video gives the timeline of the ongoing "curation" of the photographic record by Essex Police. Negatives of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 are removed by Essex Police prior to an inspection of the negatives by a defence expert. The CCRC themselves admitted that the missing negatives were significant to the safety of the conviction, albeit in a roundabout way. A comment regarding this from the previously mentioned thread below;
Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer"
must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only...
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.