Letters written to her natural mother, by Sheila Caffell (latest on 24/07/1985).

[Newbury1]

Let's say that the defence pinpoint key specific documentation needed to support their arguments.  Let's say that either these documents existed at one point, either because every investigation would have such documents or because they're listed in schedules known to the defence.  Due process then fails to produce the documentation.  In my opinion, at this point, inference could be drawn in favour of the defence, stemming from the lack of cooperation on the part of either the custodians of the documents or on the part of a buffer agency, for example CCRC.  Now what's the chance that these unavailable documents have been destroyed?  Should that turn out to be the case, in my opinion inference should be drawn in favour of the defence.

Hi Roch, as I say I agree with the documentation relating to destroyed evidence aspect, but your point about "inference", as valid as it is, is a fine line and is not IMO a weighty debatable point, when stuff has been destroyed and EP say "sorry, we should not have done that, it slipped through the procedural net" - as bollocks as EP are they I believe could twist out of this one too. 

Let's hope for the sake of "all documents being released" JB's team has a handle on this point, if they feel it can be used effectively.

[Roch]

Hi Roch, as I say I agree with the documentation relating to destroyed evidence aspect, but your point about "inference", as valid as it is, is a fine line and is not IMO a weighty debatable point, when stuff has been destroyed and EP say "sorry, we should not have done that, it slipped through the procedural net" - as bollocks as EP are they I believe could twist out of this one too. 

Let's hope for the sake of "all documents being released" JB's team has a handle on this point, if they feel it can be used effectively.

We might as well just say that all the cards are stacked in favour of the prosecuting authorities.  Should the defence find they have a decent hand, it doesn't really matter, since cheating is either officially or unofficially sanctioned on the side of the prosecuting authorities anyway.  So the defence can go and f*** itself. 

That's how it sounds to me Nick, legally naive as I may be.

[Hartley]

I don't see how I can be referring to something that isn't part of the subject matter, if the points I'm referring to are related to the subject I quoted you on. 

Hartley, you portray your self on here almost as some lone voice of factual reason in a sea of Tesko spin.   I don't see either you, nor most of Mike's work in that way.  Sometimes I point this out to you.

It's got nothing to do with obstinacy on my part.  Fair do's you've picked out a specific technical point to adduce a theory that a chain of recording was flawed due to an error from the outset.  What you haven't mentioned is that this theory of yours relies upon somebody in the chain having first noted down the (alleged) mistaken sighting.  Yet no documentary evidence exists for this whatsoever.  If it did, it would have been released in order to shore up the statements you and I have both referred to, not to mention the logs themselves. 

What I have done is to present you with some other facts separate to the technical one you have used, in order to call in to question the theory you have adduced.

That's not the point. I responded to a post which stated that the different logs all recorded the the same incident and I pointed out the it was because they are all coming from one source and passed down the line.

That is a completely undisputable fact.

Now, whether the sighting of a female is true or was a mistaken identity, changes nothing, the record in the logs and the duplication would be the same.

That's it, end of my input, I was not trying to be a lone voice or anything else, I am not saying that there are not other theories or anything else. I have already discussed this topic with you at length, snapping and sniping at me isn't going to entice me into a rerun.

Please do not try to make out that I am saying something that I am not.

[Alias]

Well I guess that's just tough. I'm not debating what JB's thinks, I am debating the system as that is what will release him and what he is up against.

If everything, paperwork, photo's, videos, lies etc., have all been declared, presented, exposed, reviewed, and double checked, and there is still nothing to release him, he won't be released.

Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!

Funny How that happened exactly in 1996 when DNA science found its foot and freed so many people - in USA at least. You´d think they would have been at least CURIOUS about what happened, but no, let´s destroy the evidence from the murders of two little kids and three grown ups. Yep, destroy it. Does that even make sense?

Edit to add, and keep a man in jail on very dubious grounds for more than a quarter of a century, are you NUTS?

[grahameb]

Funny How that happened exactly in 1996 when DNA science found its foot and freed so many people - in USA at least. You´d think they would have been at least CURIOUS about what happened, but no, let´s destroy the evidence from the murders of two little kids and three grown ups. Yep, destroy it. Does that even make sense?

Edit to add, and keep a man in jail on very dubious grounds for more than a quarter of a century, are you NUTS?

DNA evidence was first used in 1986, but was not accepted in British courts until later. Isn't it strange that in 1991 (I think) when it was becoming more popular to used DNA evidence that all evidence that could be used for DNA analysis was destroyed? Strange coincidence in my opinion.

[ngb1066]

Let's say that the defence pinpoint key specific documentation needed to support their arguments.  Let's say that either these documents existed at one point, either because every investigation would have such documents or because they're listed in schedules known to the defence.  Due process then fails to produce the documentation.  In my opinion, at this point, inference could be drawn in favour of the defence, stemming from the lack of cooperation on the part of either the custodians of the documents or on the part of a buffer agency, for example CCRC.  Now what's the chance that these unavailable documents have been destroyed?  Should that turn out to be the case, in my opinion inference should be drawn in favour of the defence.

I agree with you David.

[jon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8996444/Eddie-Gilfoyles-wifes-diary-held-by-police-for-16-years.html   This is what non disclosure can do !!

[Roch]

That's not the point. I responded to a post which stated that the different logs all recorded the the same incident and I pointed out the it was because they are all coming from one source and passed down the line.

That is a completely undisputable fact.

Now, whether the sighting of a female is true or was a mistaken identity, changes nothing, the record in the logs and the duplication would be the same.

That's it, end of my input, I was not trying to be a lone voice or anything else, I am not saying that there are not other theories or anything else. I have already discussed this topic with you at length, snapping and sniping at me isn't going to entice me into a rerun.

Please do not try to make out that I am saying something that I am not.

I didn't think I was making out that you were saying anything.  Regarding the lone voice thing, I was merely referring to a post you made the other day to the effect of you being the only person who could see through Mike Tesko's spin.  My point being that you your self are also effectively a spinner, at times in my opinion.  His spin takes the form of maximising aspects of the evidence in favour of the defence via the way he would have us all interpret such aspects.  Your spinning is in the complete opposite direction.  For him many anomalies indicate something sinister.  For you they indicate nothing more than benign inconsistencies, which will always favour an honest bobby or upstanding citizen relative. 

I wasn't spoiling for a scrap on anything.  Just felt I had to point it out.  Yes you made a single specific technical point about the logs.  Granted.

[tyler]

Roch,I agree with everything in your post as that is the way that I read things too.
I didnt read it as a critizism,merely an observation!

[Roch]

Roch,I agree with everything in your post as that is the way that I read things too.
I didnt read it as a critizism,merely an observation!

Yes, I'm not looking for conflict.  Simply stating things how I see them.  I'll have to phrase things differently when posting.