The Allegation Document (2011)

[Roch]

Someone was asking recently about this document. If I remember correctly it was from around the time of Simon McKay coming on board but it was not connected with Simon McKay. He forged a different path. A member once described document to me as being somewhat like 'the curate's egg' (the meaning of which I had to search on Google!).

[David1819]

This is full of errors, ill thought out and to be frank shambolic.

[Roch]

This is full of errors, ill thought out and to be frank shambolic.

I'm open to the argument that some of the claims or content could be challenged or otherwise explained. However I don't think that in itself justifies a wholsale dismissal of the document's contents.

Is Jeremy Bamber not the author? Or does it contain contributions from the CT?

[Smythe]

It's a heavy read, particularly the combination of legalese and some very long sentences.

I particularly like the COLP summary:

‘Although there were areas of the initial investigation which did not come up
to par, once the matter was investigated as a quintuple murder there was a
thorough and professional investigation which resulted in the conviction of
the complainant for murder.’

I have not read the context of this but, from a neutral standpoint, this makes no sense at all. First of all playing down the incompetent initial investigation with the throwaway phrase 'did not come up to par' and then suggesting that the process was successful because a guilty verdict was achieved. Are they suggesting that errors don't matter if a conviction is achieved?

[Robittybob1]

very interesting. 

[ngb1066]

I'm open to the argument that some of the claims or content could be challenged or otherwise explained. However I don't think that in itself justifies a wholsale dismissal of the document's contents.

Is Jeremy Bamber not the author? Or does it contain contributions from the CT?

It was written by someone who had worked as a paralegal and was at that time working with the CT.  It was approved by the CT and JB.  It was intended to form the basis for a misconduct in public office complaint.  If I recall correctly it was submitted to the CCRC.  It did not form any part of Simon McKay's submissions.

[lookout]

Would this have been around the time when 4/5 officers were questioned re. misconduct or similar ?

[David1819]

The main argument in the document is that no red paint was recorded by Gyniss Howard in her preliminary examination of the sound moderator. But lo and behold the preliminary examination has the red paint recorded.

[JackieD]

The main argument in the document is that no red paint was recorded by Gyniss Howard in her preliminary examination of the sound moderator. But lo and behold the preliminary examination has the red paint recorded.

Why, how and what are the legal implications regarding this

[David1819]

Why, how and what are the legal implications regarding this

Nothing. It just makes the pdf irrelevant.

[lookout]

Nothing. It just makes the pdf irrelevant.

Why so ?

[lookout]

First there was no red paint on the silencer, then there was. What's it to be ?

[Roch]

Just bumping this for discussion.