PC Bird - description of gun cupboard

[sami]

They were reprimanded over the Diane Jones murder which is why they were more than keen to secure a conviction in the Bamber murders.

interesting what was the reprimand for

[lookout]

interesting what was the reprimand for

Making a cock-up of the case. What's new ?

[sami]

Making a cock-up of the case. What's new ?

in what way do you know

[guest7363]

Making a cock-up of the case. What's new ?

There was three forces involved with that case, Suffolk, Met and Essex 👍

[David1819]

There was three forces involved with that case, Suffolk, Met and Essex 👍

The Met only got involved in 1991 at Bamber's request.

[guest7363]

The Met only got involved in 1991 at Bamber's request.

Sorry David I’m on about Lookouts post, not Bambers 🙈

[Kaldin]

And?

That would indicate the someone put it away without putting it in its case.

[David1819]

That would indicate the someone put it away without putting it in its case.

In one instance.

[Jan]

Did they say human blood? I’m sure Anne said at trial she thought it was rabbits blood?  They probably didn’t know the significance of the find?  So your your saying the police placed it at the back of the cupboard or said it was at the back when 5 people were in the house when it was discovered.

No .  They thought it was human blood hence why they rang the police apparently the day they found it .

[gringo]

They shouldn't have done that, if it's true.

A snippet here on the gun cupboard: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861024&id=GoJDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2005,5924099&hl=en

   Good find, Steve. Reading the links that you provided brings home the difficulty that Rivlin had in conducting a proper defence.
    Having to frame his defence whilst accepting the silencer evidence meant that any explanation was always going to be weak. Whatever anyone's stance there are some things that we can all agree on.
    Any Bamber innocent scenario cannot stand up if the silencer evidence is truthful, this is surely agreed by all. Silencer used = Bamber guilty. Silencer not used = Bamber not guilty. This being the case, Rivlin, for all the criticism that he has received about the defence was operating blind and with his hands tied behind his back. Whatever the reasons for this, it was an uphill battle working from this false premise.
    Even guilters must accept that the silencer evidence is far from clear cut. They may choose to regard the changing exhibit references, unclear paper trails and questionable chain of custody protocols as admin errors or some such but agree that there are questions. We all know more now than was known then, since more evidence has gradually been made known.
    The relevance of the missing negatives, specifically the gun cupboard, becomes apparent. The tacit admission by the CCRC that the missing negatives are "significant to the safety of the conviction" cannot be brushed over. The reasons given by EP for the ever diminishing negatives are not credible and wholly unnecessary. It is wilful blindness to accept without suspicion the explanations given by EP and even the most staunch guilter would have to admit, if debating in good faith, that EP's actions throughout give the appearance that they are hiding and disposing of inconvenient negatives.
    The "significant to the safety of the conviction" missing negatives of the gun cupboard would if available blow a hole in either the prosecution or the defence. The contents of the cupboard either support the relatives version or torpedo it. Conveniently, yet again, EP have destroyed the vital evidence that would settle the issue beyond argument. How many coincidental errors and oversights before suspicions are aroused?

    From the articles posted which include parts of Rivlin's cross examinations, it is apparent that had he been able to show that the silencer was not in the gun cupboard then the prosecution had no case left. Now imagine the photos were available. I think that we all know why they were hidden in the first place.

   

[Jan]

Not only that but it was important it was sheilas blood .

Because if we are going to accept without any evidence that jeremy “ could have shut the window, could have destroyed his clothes , could have ridden a bicycle in the dark across fields , could have left the scene free of bloody footprints , etc etc

Then you have to accept the possibility that shiela used the silencer and took it off before she shot herself , so it had to be sheilas blood.

Sounds  extremely unlikely but so is all the non evidence against jeremy .

[Jan]

Also the jury asked a lot of questions about the family evidence and what they stood to gain and apparently Julie’s evidence was sometimes incoherent so without the silencer probabilities show jeremy would probably not have been convicted.,

[David1819]

   Good find, Steve. Reading the links that you provided brings home the difficulty that Rivlin had in conducting a proper defence.
    Having to frame his defence whilst accepting the silencer evidence meant that any explanation was always going to be weak. Whatever anyone's stance there are some things that we can all agree on.
    Any Bamber innocent scenario cannot stand up if the silencer evidence is truthful, this is surely agreed by all. Silencer used = Bamber guilty. Silencer not used = Bamber not guilty. This being the case, Rivlin, for all the criticism that he has received about the defence was operating blind and with his hands tied behind his back. Whatever the reasons for this, it was an uphill battle working from this false premise.
    Even guilters must accept that the silencer evidence is far from clear cut. They may choose to regard the changing exhibit references, unclear paper trails and questionable chain of custody protocols as admin errors or some such but agree that there are questions. We all know more now than was known then, since more evidence has gradually been made known.
    The relevance of the missing negatives, specifically the gun cupboard, becomes apparent. The tacit admission by the CCRC that the missing negatives are "significant to the safety of the conviction" cannot be brushed over. The reasons given by EP for the ever diminishing negatives are not credible and wholly unnecessary. It is wilful blindness to accept without suspicion the explanations given by EP and even the most staunch guilter would have to admit, if debating in good faith, that EP's actions throughout give the appearance that they are hiding and disposing of inconvenient negatives.
    The "significant to the safety of the conviction" missing negatives of the gun cupboard would if available blow a hole in either the prosecution or the defence. The contents of the cupboard either support the relatives version or torpedo it. Conveniently, yet again, EP have destroyed the vital evidence that would settle the issue beyond argument. How many coincidental errors and oversights before suspicions are aroused?

    From the articles posted which include parts of Rivlin's cross examinations, it is apparent that had he been able to show that the silencer was not in the gun cupboard then the prosecution had no case left. Now imagine the photos were available. I think that we all know why they were hidden in the first place.

   

He almost split the Jury and would have succeeded if judge didn't reiterate the testimony of the silencer in the way that he did.  Nevertheless we must not forget that Rivlin tied his own hands behind his back.

[gringo]

Kaldin not sure what all the aggro is about it usually takes two but Gringo is an excellent poster and is normally very civil something must have really annoyed him

  Thankyou, Susan. The aggro is just the usual abuse and lack of good faith debate.
    My response to RJ was in reply to RJ telling me that I was not to post in a certain thread, as if RJ is the arbiter of who can post where and when. I was called a liar without any of these supposed lies being pointed out and told to piss off and stop shit stirring. The usual engaging good faith debate that is to be expected. This despite my reply being to Kaldin. A number of other posters then decided that rather than engage with any of the questions raised by my posts decided that calling me a liar and other abuse was the suitable response.
    When responding to RJ I paraphrased RJ's own words towards me. I told nobody to piss off. I am perfectly happy for guilters to engage in this way. The more your arguments are met with abuse rather than debate demonstrates that they have no satisfactory response.

   

[gringo]

He almost split the Jury and would have succeeded if judge didn't reiterate the testimony of the silencer in the way that he did.  Nevertheless we must not forget that Rivlin tied his own hands behind his back.

   I agree to an extent, David. However if Rivlin tied his own hands then EP poked his eyes out by hiding so much evidence. It made his defence all the more difficult with prosecution shenanigans.