Author Topic: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie  (Read 463 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« on: June 14, 2017, 04:14:AM »
There have been long heated discussions on this forum about noble cause corruption and what reason do police have to lie or manipulate evidence

Below is details again of the case of Susan May which is a very controversial case and it does appear the police did manipulate evidence. After reading up again on the case why do people believe the police would not manipulate evidence in the Bamber case.

The murder of Hilda Marchbank: clues that could clear niece Susan May
Police failed to follow up evidence linking a red car seen at the crime scene to a heroin addict who burgled old people's houses

It is almost seven years since Susan May walked out of Askham Grange prison in North Yorkshire after serving 12 years for a murder she insists she did not commit. Despite all those years of incarceration, there was a part of her that wasn't ready to walk free. "I came out with a heavy heart because I always thought I would only get out of prison with my conviction overturned," she said.
Ever since her release, May has devoted herself to proving her innocence. Now the Guardian has discovered evidence suggesting police ignored vital clues supporting May's case that she did not suffocate her 89-year-old aunt, Hilda Marchbank, in 1992, in Royton, Oldham, Greater Manchester.
The Guardian has discovered that Greater Manchester police failed to follow up evidence pointing to a man whom police said was a "good suspect", whose name was given to detectives in an anonymous phone call shortly after the murder. Michael Rawlinson, a heroin addict, had convictions for burgling the homes of elderly people. In 2001, six years after Marchbank's death, he was killed in a drug-related dispute.
The Guardian has also uncovered claims that police tried to persuade a witness to lie, apparently to eliminate other leads from the inquiry and concentrate on building a case against May. The witness, George Cragg, has been tracked down by the Guardian 20 years after the killing.
Campaigners for May say police seem to have instinctively believed she committed the crime – despite a lack of motive and a dearth of evidence to prove she beat her aunt around the face and suffocated her with her own pillow.
May was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence, the campaigners say, comprising mainly three marks, said to be her fingerprints, that allegedly contained her aunt's blood. Fresh doubts have emerged in recent years about the testing method, about whether the marks are May's fingerprints – and even whether they contained human blood.
'Good suspect'
For the detectives investigating the murder of Hilda Marchbank, it ought to have been a significant breakthrough: a near neighbour of the victim had seen a red Ford Fiesta outside the victim's house at midnight on the night she was killed in March 1992. Although the car was unoccupied, its engine was running for 15 minutes.
For the detectives investigating the murder of Hilda Marchbank, it ought to have been a significant breakthrough: a near neighbour of the victim had seen a red Ford Fiesta outside the victim's house at midnight on the night she was killed in March 1992. Although the car was unoccupied, its engine was running for 15 minutes.


Hilda Marchbank was found murdered at her home in Royton, near Oldham, Greater Manchester. Photograph: Manchester Evening News Syndication
Another neighbour had seen the car drive away soon after and gave a good description of three men in the vehicle. Marchbank was found next morning by May, her niece and carer, who was then 48.
The Guardian has learned of a further link to the red car: two days after the murder, an anonymous caller gave police the names of two men, alleging they were the killers. Another anonymous caller, who rang six days before the murder, reported both men robbing an elderly woman in the area two weeks earlier.

It transpired such a robbery had been committed and the details matched those given in the call. Rawlinson, one of the men named, had access to a red Fiesta, owned by his sister. The car was sold three days after the murder.
Detectives knew Rawlinson and the car were suspicious: in police files, he was described as a "good suspect". But Rawlinson was never treated as a serious suspect, according to May, who found herself accused of murdering the aunt she says she have loved and looked after. She claims police quickly made up their minds that she was responsible for the murder.
Their reasoning? May had been in a clandestine affair with a local man but, when questioned by police, denied the relationship. "It was none of their business and nothing to do with Auntie's death," is how she explains the lie that she believes led to her serving 12 years of a life sentence for murder.
The prosecution had tried bring up the "lavishing of presents" on the man she was having an affair with, using Marchbank's money. The judge told the jury to forget that claim, saying there was no evidence. May had power of attorney over her aunt's finances.
The police, far from following up the lead on Rawlinson and his possible accomplices, seem to have concentrated on eliminating him from their inquiries.
They traced the owners of red Ford Fiestas in the Oldham and Rochdale areas. Their investigation led them to an Oldham man, Craig Turner. Coincidentally, Turner and two friends, George Cragg and Robin Walker, had been in the vicinity of the murder scene on the evening of the killing, 11 March.
Two weeks after the murder, the three men were interviewed at Oldham police station. When tracked down by the Guardian recently, Cragg – now a Blackpool hotelier – said he and his friends were told from the start they were not suspects. Instead, they were asked about their movements on the night of 11 March.
They said they had gone in Cragg's white Ford Granada to a house near Marchbank's home to see a plumber who owed Cragg money. It wasn't the answer the police wanted, it seems. Cragg says police told him they needed to "eliminate the red Fiesta, we know who's done it, she's done it". He now believes police were referring to May.
Cragg says two weeks later, two detectives came to his house and asked him again what car he had been driving when he visited the plumber. He repeated that he had been driving his white Granada. One officer, he says, then said: "Can you not say you were driving a red Fiesta?" Asked why they would want him to say this, one officer is alleged to have replied: "We have her bang to rights and we want to eliminate the red Fiesta."
Cragg's wife, Julie, was present throughout this visit and says her husband's account is accurate. She says police "propositioned" her husband to lie, though he refused.
The couple's statements have been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has invited May to resubmit her application for the case to be referred back to the appeal court.
Six weeks after the murder and a fortnight after May had been charged, police traced the red Fiesta belonging to Rawlinson's sister. Forensic samples were taken from the vehicle but never sent for laboratory testing. Years later, when the CCRC asked why May's lawyers were not told this car had been found, they were told the file had been placed in the wrong folder.

Rawlinson was questioned about his movements on the date of the murder. He said he and his girlfriend had been drinking at the house of a male friend from noon on 11 March until noon the following day. He said they had not left the house, watched TV or listened to the radio. His girlfriend and the man backed his alibi and the matter was left there.
Six years later, Rawlinson was murdered. In 2001, Campbell Malone, then May's solicitor, paid a prison visit to Gary Brierley, the man convicted of killing Rawlinson. According to Malone, Brierley said when he was arrested, police in Rochdale told him he "deserved a medal" because Rawlinson had "killed an old lady".
May's trial lawyers knew nothing of the sighting of the red car and its link to Rawlinson, nor of the anonymous phone call naming him as the killer. The trial jury, at Manchester crown court in 1993, was left equally in the dark. It found her guilty.
n all her 12 years inside, May never wavered in her protestations of innocence. She refused to comply with offending behaviour programmes and other measures that lifers must normally follow in order to apply for parole.
But in 2005, May was released, a week before finishing the minimum tariff of 12 years ordered by the judge, becoming the first prisoner to gain release "on time" while still denying the offence.
The former deputy head of Hampshire CID, Des Thomas, has written three critical reviews between 2009 and last year of the police investigation into the death of Marchbank. He said: "The evidence discovered by the Guardian may point to a pattern of behaviour which raises a reasonable suspicion that the investigation was prejudicial, if not overtly corrupt.
"My own review, based on disclosed documents, revealed a number of apparent anomalies in the case. Combined with evidence located by the Guardian, these anomalies may point to an investigation, the principal purpose of which was to prove, by the selective use and non-disclosure of evidence, the hypothesis that Susan May was guilty of murdering her aunt. The original investigation report records [that] the red car and its occupants were never traced. This appears to be in direct contradiction to the evidence recovered by the Guardian."
In his 2009 report Thomas said a "disinterested observer may conclude that some evidence had been manipulated to construct a case against Susan May". He added that a "number of police witnesses may have adjusted their evidence to fit a desired rather than valid outcome."

A spokesman for Greater Manchester police said the force would not be putting any of the officers who investigated the murder of Marchbank forward to comment. He said the case was tried at crown court and had been the subject of judicial appeals, which upheld the conviction. "The criminal justice system has been successively satisfied of her – May's – guilt and there is nothing further to say on the matter," he added.
Flawed evidence
May will also be asking the CCRC to consider new forensic evidence relating to marks on the wall of her aunt's home. Arie Zeelenberg, the former head of the fingerprint service at the Dutch national police agency, believes forensic evidence that helped convict May was flawed and is conducting a review on her behalf.
In 2007, Zeelenberg advised the inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Records Office's fingerprint bureau, following the case of former policewoman Shirley McKie, who, in 2006, was awarded £750,000 from the Scottish Executive after being wrongly accused of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene and lying about it. Professor Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute, has also lent his name to the challenge to the evidence that helped convict May.
In 2007, Zeelenberg advised the inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Records Office's fingerprint bureau, following the case of former policewoman Shirley McKie, who, in 2006, was awarded £750,000 from the Scottish Executive after being wrongly accused of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene and lying about it. Professor Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute, has also lent his name to the challenge to the evidence that helped convict May.


Now 67, May survives on a small state pension and is in remission from breast cancer she feels was exacerbated by her incarceration. When she was released, she was unable to get work – "my conviction came up on every Criminal Records Bureau check" – and instead devoted her life to clearing her name.
She is extremely thankful to the Craggs for speaking out. She said: "Despite 20 years passing since Auntie was murdered, I still firmly believe there are individuals who know something which could help clear my name and bring long awaited justice for my auntie. I may be free from prison, but remain locked up in this wrongful conviction and will never stop fighting to clear my name."
May's case has twice been rejected by the court of appeal, most recently in 2001. Last year, the CCRC refused to refer her for a third time. Now, with the evidence supplied by the Guardian about Cragg's claims about the meeting and other new material, the commissioners have invited her to resubmit her claim.
May's mother – Hilda Marchbank's sister – died about a year after the conviction. With other relatives, she supported her daughter wholeheartedly.
Michael Mansfield QC, who represented May during her second appeal in 2001, has written to the CCRC underscoring his "firm belief" in her innocence and asking the commission not to close its door on her.
"I loved my auntie," May told the Guardian. "The worst thing has been the idea people believed I could have hurt her."
Additional research by Mischa Wilmers


An Article on the Case


FOR SUSAN MAY: NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON JUSTICE

By Neil Root




I was very late in the day coming to the Susan May case. It wasn’t until September 2012 that I contacted Susan with a view to writing an in-depth newspaper feature article about her case. We corresponded in the following months and spoke on the phone a handful of times, but then the proposed feature article on her case was delayed as Susan wanted to wait until new forensic evidence being considered by a leading European expert was put before the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CRRC). In February 2013, I contacted Susan again to see how she was doing, and sadly she told me that her cancer had returned, she was having tests, and that she would be in touch as soon as she knew what was going on. In November 2013, I read Susan’s obituary online and, although I had never met Susan face-to-face, I was deeply saddened. The sadness of rage: at the injustice done to her, and that she hadn’t lived to see her murder conviction quashed and her name cleared. When I listened to Susan’s memorial service online, I cried as one of her stalwart supporters, the Guardian Prisons correspondent Eric Allison, read Susan’s favourite poem The Owl and the Pussycat.
Since giving up her job as a hairdresser in 1990, Susan May was the sole carer for her elderly mother and 83-year-old aunt, Hilda Marchbank, and visited Hilda’s house, near Susan’s own in Royton, near Oldham in Greater Manchester, several times every day, preparing meals and generally taking care of her. On the morning of 12 March 1993 at 9.30am, Susan found Hilda murdered, brutally battered about the face and suffocated, with her nightdress around her waist. Drawers both upstairs and downstairs had been pulled out, the contents scattered all over the floor. When questioned by the police, Susan said that she thought that Hilda had been murdered by burglars. It certainly did look that way. And later, some of Susan’s late uncle’s Masonic memorabilia and a chequebook belonging to Hilda were found dumped in a skip nearby. This illuminating fact was not disclosed at Susan’s trial.
Susan was as helpful as she could be to the police, and gave her fingerprints several times - three blood smudges had been found on the wall of the downstairs room where Hilda slept and was found, one of which had the fingerprint and palm print of Susan’s right hand, and another an unidentified left hand fingerprint. The prosecution said that all three were human blood. Another key question would be whether these smears were made at the time of the murder, or were old marks. Three expert witnesses would be consulted regarding these blood smears - Michael Davie said that there was no wet blood around at the time the body was found, so the marks were not made at that time. Wilfred Basley, a forensic scientist, said that just one of the smears was human blood, and Susan’s prints were not on that one. Javaid Hussein (actually not a blood expert, but a fingerprint detection and enhancement expert) said that all three marks were either human or animal blood, and that there was no conclusive evidence whether the marks were made at the same time. Forensic students at Paisley University also analysed the smears, and they concluded that other biological products, not blood, could produce the same effect.
I interviewed Michael Meacher MP in his office at Portcullis House next to the Houses of Parliament in late October 2012 about Susan’s case. Mr Meacher, a former minister, is also Susan’s constituency MP and was a staunch supporter, tabling an early day motion in an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on her behalf, and he stressed how crucial this ‘blood’ evidence is in upholding Susan’s conviction. ‘This really matters. Was it blood, and if so, was it a fingerprint and whose was it?’ Mr Meacher also stated that Susan’s case ‘ultimately hinges on the forensic evidence’. It was this disputed blood smear evidence that was being reassessed by a leading European expert when Susan sadly died. 
Eighteen days after she had found her aunt murdered, Susan was charged with Hilda’s murder. ‘Immediately after I had been charged a group of friends rallied round and offered me their support.  Over 50 people immediately came forward and gave character witnesses for me.  These statements were never heard in court.  Since the early 1990s this group of friends has developed into a significant support group – The Friends of Susan May, and includes around 100 MPs.’
-Susan May, from her diary

Those MPs include Michael Meacher, John McDonnell (who set up the Parliamentary Friends of Susan May after her second appeal failed in 2001), Diane Abbott, and the late Tony Benn. So there has been no shortage of heavyweight support for Susan’s case.

It was put forward by the prosecution at Susan’s trial in April 1993 that Susan had made a comment to a Det Sergeant. Janet Rimmer of Greater Manchester Police said that Susan had asked her on leaving the police station one day whether the police could get forensic evidence from under Hilda’s fingernails, with the insinuation that Susan was concerned that her own skin cells and therefore DNA could be found there, if Hilda had tried to defend herself. Susan always adamantly denied saying any such thing. This is circumstantial evidence, but such a character assassination can sway a jury. Susan told me that a retired detective who had looked into her case for her said that this sounded like ‘verballing’.

What was not disclosed at the trial was that foreign fibres were found in Hilda’s hand. As Michael Meacher confirmed to me, ‘the police were never able to link them (the fibres) to either Hilda Marchbank or Susan’. Had Hilda grabbed at her attacker’s jacket or sweater and pulled some fibres off? I contacted Greater Manchester Police for an interview about Susan’s case in September 2012, but was told that there were no senior officers who had worked on Susan’s case still in the force. 

At Susan’s trial, she was represented by a rookie lawyer who had never defended in a murder case before. He advised Susan that she did not need expert witnesses to testify on her behalf, although she was entitled, as she would be acquitted! The prosecution painted Susan’s motive as financial - Hilda was comfortably off and Susan stood to share the inheritance with her sister. Susan, then in her late forties, was in a relationship with a younger man at the time, and the point was raised that she had bought him a Yamaha motorbike and other gifts in order to hold onto him. It was put to the jury that Susan had ‘drained’ both Hilda and her mother’s bank accounts of £200K between 1986 and 1993, a period of seven years. That must have sounded like a large figure to the chosen twelve. But when you calculate, it is approximately £28,570 a year, and out of this Susan had to keep Hilda, her mother and herself - all the food, heating and fuel costs, essential repairs to houses, clothing, etc, etc. Not so astounding after all? Much was also made of the fact that Susan was £7,000 in debt at the time of her aunt’s murder. Hardly worth murdering for, is it? And it was not stressed at the trial by the defence that Susan had Power of Attorney over Hilda’s money anyway, which is what Michael Meacher agrees is ‘an important counterpoint’.

Then there is the incredible evidence uncovered by Eric Allison and his colleagues on the Guardian. A neighbour of Hilda had seen a red Fiesta car near her house on the night of her murder, the engine running. Another neighbour saw it drive away, with three men inside. Two days after the murder, an anonymous caller rang the police and named two men they suspected as being involved in Hilda’s murder. One of the men was a heroin addict named Michael Rawlinson, who was known to the police as a burglar who stole to feed his habit and had convictions for burgling the homes of elderly people like Hilda. Rawlinson had the use of a red Fiesta car which belonged to his sister. This car was sold three days after Hilda’s murder. Rawlinson was described in Greater Manchester Police files as ‘a good suspect’, but this was never followed up. By then the police inquiry was focused on Hilda’s niece and carer, Susan. Michael Rawlinson was himself murdered in a drug dispute in 2001.

Since it passed its November 1999 judgment allowing Susan’s case to go to the Court of Appeal (which rejected her Appeal in 2001 put forward by Michael Mansfield QC while Susan was still in prison), the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CRRC) has been woefully slow in dealing with Susan’s case, despite there being fresh evidence and grounds to appeal to clear her name, now posthumously. Michael Meacher MP put a question in the House of Commons asking for a review of the CCRC, which was set up in 1997 solely to deal with possible miscarriages of justice. Mr Meacher spoke to me in October 2012 about the need for that review of the CCRC, saying, ‘First of all, we want to know that that is going to happen, and secondly who is going to do it, because that person has to be absolutely thoroughly independent’. When I asked him whether he thought the CCRC was fit for purpose, especially in regard to Susan’s case, Mr Meacher said, ‘In my view, it’s been going on a long time and, due to the evidence, it should go’. 
It was recently announced that an inquiry into the effectiveness of the CRRC was being launched by the Parliamentary Justice Select Committee. One hopes that this powerful committee will conduct a thorough and wide-ranging investigation and that, whatever the outcome, Susan’s unsafe conviction will be looked into again.
 ‘My life is now in limbo. I am unable to move on as I remain a convicted murderer.  The fight to clear my name dominates every aspect of my life.  Although I am home again, I do not feel at all free.  The police still have my mother’s jewellery, many photographs and several other personal items.  It feels as though they are trying to retain my identity.  I have never been able to properly mourn my murdered aunty or my mother, and I am having to learn how to be a grandmother to the 5 grandchildren that were born whilst I was in prison.  Knowing that, unless he is dead which I think he may be, the real murderer remains free to do it again, to someone else, both haunts and terrifies me.’
-The late Susan May, from her diary, written after her release from prison in 2005




Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34058
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2017, 09:59:AM »
Poor Susan May. A terrible travesty of justice.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19148
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2017, 11:59:AM »
If it's about Susan May, why is it on the Bamber board?
100% - No doubts!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34058
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2017, 12:04:PM »
Susan was JB's friend and she'd been in the same boat as he is.

Corruption of evidence.Manipulation of evidence. Guilty before being proved innocent.Shocking !!

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19148
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2017, 12:14:PM »
Susan was JB's friend and she'd been in the same boat as he is.

Corruption of evidence.Manipulation of evidence. Guilty before being proved innocent.Shocking !!

Piggy backing Jeremy onto the Susan May case, doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
100% - No doubts!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34058
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2017, 12:36:PM »
Piggy backing Jeremy onto the Susan May case, doesn't make Jeremy innocent.





So you keep repeating  ::)

Offline JackieD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2017, 12:39:PM »

well said lookout and it highlights police behaviour and the lies that they tell





So you keep repeating  ::)

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1331
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2017, 07:06:PM »
What is wrong with our justice system that allows this to happen. Honestly the police should really hang their heads in shame. Was it judithward that was fitted up too.adam should read about her as it clearly shows how many police, scientists, experts etc lied to get her convicted. Utterly utterly shocking

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17125
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2017, 07:25:PM »
What is wrong with our justice system that allows this to happen. Honestly the police should really hang their heads in shame. Was it judithward that was fitted up too.adam should read about her as it clearly shows how many police, scientists, experts etc lied to get her convicted. Utterly utterly shocking

I created a thread on this last week.

Asking how many dozens or hundreds of people would have to be involved in a noble cause corruption for Bamber.

I suggested to Mike it would have to start off with a specialist team within EP. Maybe 5 or 6 officers to decide what false forensic evidence needed to be created.

Once the 50+ pieces now in the public domain were agreed by the police, experts, professors, blood testers & photograhers would have to be brought in to give the new false evidence some gravitas and validity prior & during the trial. 

The admin department in EP would create new false documents, reports & witness statements for everyone to sign. This was a big job & may have needed several people.

Roch said Ainsley was brought in to hide the original evidence. Anyone who had signed for the original evidence, later agreed to sign for the new false evidence. This was because they had been assured the original evidence had now been disposed. 

Must admit I thought the police & everyone else would be stronger after AE put a bit of pressure on them.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 07:43:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1331
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2017, 07:45:PM »
Well how exactly do you believe mojs happen then Adam and use Judith ward as an example.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17125
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2017, 07:59:PM »
Well how exactly do you believe mojs happen then Adam and use Judith ward as an example.

It wouldn't just be a MOJ with Bamber.

It would be an unprecendented industrial scale deliberate frame. Involving dozens or hundreds of professional law abiding individuals & departments, inside & outside of EP.

All working together to create 50+ pieces of false forensic evidence.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 08:32:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12115
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2017, 08:25:PM »
If it's about Susan May, why is it on the Bamber board?

well mike pjilpots been put on the bamber threads for abslutly no reson why shouldn't susan may be on here.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22994
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2017, 08:32:PM »
well mike pjilpots been put on the bamber threads for abslutly no reson why shouldn't susan may be on here.

Actually, there was every reason. I was comparing their psychological similarities.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2017, 09:23:PM »
It wouldn't just be a MOJ with Bamber.

It would be an unprecendented industrial scale deliberate frame. Involving dozens or hundreds of professional law abiding individuals & departments, inside & outside of EP.

All working together to create 50+ pieces of false forensic evidence.

There is only one piece of false forensic evidence the silencer.

Was Professor Herbert Macdonnel creating a false report when he said he now believes it could be suicide? - NO

Was professor Knight lying under oath when he said it would be "extraordinary" for Jeremy to have committed the crime? - NO

Was Dr Vanezis lying when he said to was "Too incredible to believe" Jeremy could have engineered the scene? - NO

Was Dr Vanezis lying when he said Sheila's suicide was feasible? - NO

Was Dr Fowler lying when he concluded the silencer was not used on Sheila? - NO

Was Philip Boyce lying when he concluded the silencer was not used on Sheila? - NO

Did anyone plant any of Nicholas Caffells blood, bone and tissue into the silencer due to the three contact wounds to Nicholas? - NO.

Was Peter Suthurst lying in his report when he concluded the silencer was not on the rifle? - NO
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19148
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2017, 09:33:PM »
There is only one piece of false forensic evidence the silencer.

Was Professor Herbert Macdonnel creating a false report when he said he now believes it could be suicide? - NO

Was professor Knight lying under oath when he said it would be "extraordinary" for Jeremy to have committed the crime? - NO

Was Dr Vanezis lying when he said to was "Too incredible to believe" Jeremy could have engineered the scene? - NO

Was Dr Vanezis lying when he said Sheila's suicide was feasible? - NO

Was Dr Fowler lying when he concluded the silencer was not used on Sheila? - NO

Was Philip Boyce lying when he concluded the silencer was not used on Sheila? - NO

Did anyone plant any of Nicholas Caffells blood, bone and tissue into the silencer due to the three contact wounds to Nicholas? - NO.

Was Peter Suthurst lying in his report when he concluded the silencer was not on the rifle? - NO

When did Suthurst write a report about the silencer?
100% - No doubts!