Police only option to get Julie to commit massive perjury:

[JackieD]

You believe Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.

You ignore the evidence. 

You really are 'Mad'.

Putting you on ignore you are so irrelevant to the truth

[JackieD]

David how do I put Adam on ignore ? Forgotten and can’t be arsed to read his drivel

[David1819]

David how do I put Adam on ignore ? Forgotten and can’t be arsed to read his drivel

Profile > Summary > Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore list > Edit Ignore list.

[JackieD]

Profile > Summary > Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore list > Edit Ignore list.

Thanks David all done

[Adam]

Lol. JackieD was rude to me earlier today. As she is to Steve.

Soon as I give it back, she becomes a cry baby.

Anyway I'll respond to her Julie posts as usual.

[guest29835]

Lol. JackieD was rude to me earlier today. As she is to Steve.

Soon as I give it back, she becomes a cry baby.

Anyway I'll respond to her Julie posts as usual.

This is an important part of Adam's moral support efforts: giving people the 'hard word'.  Think of this Forum as a military camp and Adam is the Regimental Sergeant-Major.  Not a popular job, but it has to be done.

[Steve_uk]

Lol. JackieD was rude to me earlier today. As she is to Steve.

Soon as I give it back, she becomes a cry baby.

Anyway I'll respond to her Julie posts as usual.

She gets away with it because she's a woman.

[Adam]

She gets away with it because she's a woman.

Rudeness started in reply 40.

[Rob_]

I gained some details about the case, which as far as I know have not yet been made public, during the period in 2011 and 2012 in which I did have some direct involvement in legal work on behalf of JB.  There are time limits following arrest although these can be extended and in this case following intensive interviews JM was no longer treated as under arrest and in police custody but as a prosecution witness.  It is documents which detail this history which remain withheld under PII.  If disclosed I suspect they would prove very embarrassing to the prosecution.

Are the documents held under PII protected (listed and logged) or can this information go missing like say SC's nightdress? if someone think's it's not needed anymore?

[ngb1066]

Are the documents held under PII protected (listed and logged) or can this information go missing like say SC's nightdress? if someone think's it's not needed anymore?

They certainly were all listed at one time in accordance with standard procedure and they should of course be preserved.  However, who knows what may have happened?  After all, a number of the photographic negatives were removed from the film strips and destroyed, in breach of clear police standing orders.

[Rob_]

They certainly were all listed at one time in accordance with standard procedure and they should of course be preserved.  However, who knows what may have happened?  After all, a number of the photographic negatives were removed from the film strips and destroyed, in breach of clear police standing orders.

Thanks this case is so bizarre, PII for a murder case?

[guest7363]

After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody.  She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.

Susan Battersby was interviewed under caution as well NGB, I think that was more to do with the Cheque book fraud.  I’m of the same opinion as you NGB, Stan went for Julie and Taff interviewed Bamber, Stan went in hard on Julie to start with until she played ball.  Barlow on the other hand thought Taff had taken it easy with Bamber, can’t remember off hand but didn’t Stan go in for Bamber’s second interview?

[guest7363]

They certainly were all listed at one time in accordance with standard procedure and they should of course be preserved.  However, who knows what may have happened?  After all, a number of the photographic negatives were removed from the film strips and destroyed, in breach of clear police standing orders.

Am I right in saying that in the 80s sensitive material could be withheld from the defence at the discretion of the Prosecutor and not the Courts NGB and did this change in the 90s?  Would the said witness statements made by Julie be covered by the current Law for PII, or would they just be in the Data protection act?

[Steve_uk]

Susan Battersby was interviewed under caution as well NGB, I think that was more to do with the Cheque book fraud.  I’m of the same opinion as you NGB, Stan went for Julie and Taff interviewed Bamber, Stan went in hard on Julie to start with until she played ball.  Barlow on the other hand thought Taff had taken it easy with Bamber, can’t remember off hand but didn’t Stan go in for Bamber’s second interview?

Yes and made a complete mess of it.

[guest7363]

Yes and made a complete mess of it.

Yes, Barlow was very critical of Taff for not covering all the points that needed to be covered, he focused too much on the Burglary and drugs and not on the murders.