Every case is condensed.
Public money and resources are used to gather all the evidence, and all of it should be made available to the court which tries the matter, no matter which side it tends to support! Instead the prosecuting authorities choose the evidence which favours their case, and withhold anything which might favour the defendants case...
In the instant case, the police radio message log version of the police handling of the siege situation and the way it was brought to a conclusion, conflicted staggeringly with the official version of the same operation and investigation. The trial was decided on one body being downstairs in the kitchen, and four bodies upstairs in bedrooms. In order for it to have been a fair trial, the jury should have had to decide whether they were satisfied that police had found only one body downstairs and the other four bodies upstairs! This could only have been done had the prosecution declared the contents of the police radio message log contents, in particular, the timed messages that were passed at 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am, as well as the content of a message passed at 8.10am, where is was being declared that there were two bodies found downstairs in the kitchen at the time police entered, the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female, a murder, and a suicide, downstairs, and a further threee bodies found upstairs...
This business, of 'two bodies downstairs' and only three bodies upstairs', versus 'one body downstairs', 'four bodies upstairs', was capable of impacting upon whether or not Jeremy Bamber had killed his sister more than four / five hours beforehand, the prosecution were under a duty to disclose this evidence to the defence before the commencement of the trial, but they did not...
And, the reason they did not was because had they done so, it would have proved potentially damaging to their prospects of securing a conviction against the defendant...
