Time

[mertol22]

When crimes are investigated  in most cases the times are among the hardest to recall, i often wonder of the many still witheld pictures in this case how many show timepieces around the house and how do they tie in with the claims of the police?

[Hartley]

When crimes are investigated  in most cases the times are among the hardest to recall, i often wonder of the many still witheld pictures in this case how many show timepieces around the house and how do they tie in with the claims of the police?

There are no withheld pictures, there are 8 negatives missing which the police state were overexposed and not developed.

[ngb1066]

There are no withheld pictures, there are 8 negatives missing which the police state were overexposed and not developed.

Hartley - what you say on this is inaccurate.  There are many more than 8 negatives missing.  The 8 referred to is a specific sequence of negatives cropped from the start of a strip of 10.  In each case Essex Police have stated not that the destroyed negatives were "overexposed and not developed" but rather that they were unexposed.  They were certainly developed as the remaining negatives in each strip with missing negatives have been developed.  The explanation given by Essex Police provides no justification for the cropping and destruction of the negatives in breach of standing orders.  In the case of the 8 mentioned there is no explanation for the fact that the negatives claimed to be unexposed were at the start rather than at the end of the strip.

[tonyb]

 I agree with NGB, surely to know the photo's are overexposed they would have to be developed.but also,prior to digital photo's i,as my father taught me,used a 35mm and film you "threaded" into the camera spool. on closing the camera i would take 2 or 3 photo's with the lens cap on to ensure that any possible light contamination of the film had been "spooled" and fresh film was ready to go. Just a thought,could that be the reason for "missing"negatives?

[Hartley]

Hartley - what you say on this is inaccurate.  There are many more than 8 negatives missing.  The 8 referred to is a specific sequence of negatives cropped from the start of a strip of 10.  In each case Essex Police have stated not that the destroyed negatives were "overexposed and not developed" but rather that they were unexposed.  They were certainly developed as the remaining negatives in each strip with missing negatives have been developed.  The explanation given by Essex Police provides no justification for the cropping and destruction of the negatives in breach of standing orders.  In the case of the 8 mentioned there is no explanation for the fact that the negatives claimed to be unexposed were at the start rather than at the end of the strip.

Is there any way in which the defence can prove that photographs are still being withheld?

[Hartley]

Is there any way in which the defence can prove that photographs are still being withheld?

Bearing in mind this statement from the CCRC:

(1) Criminal Cases Review Commission statement re: Jeremy Bamber case

On 11th February this year, the Criminal Cases Review Commission informed Jeremy Bamber of its provisional decision not to refer his murder convictions to the Court of Appeal. At that point we sent Mr Bamber and his legal team an 89-page document setting out in detail our analysis of the case and reasons for the provisional decision and invited them to respond within three months.
 
The three month period for responses ended on 6th May 2011. We have been in frequent contact with Mr Bamber and his team since February but his solicitor has not yet been in a position to make a formal response to our provisional decision document. Mr Bamber and his team have requested a further two months in which to make their further submissions. The Commission has agreed to this and has gone further by extending the time limit for submissions until 22 July.
 
The matters being discussed have included questions about the disclosure of crime scene photographs and negatives. The Commission is in possession of 401 negatives of photographs taken in connection with the murders at White House Farm that were provided to the Commission by Essex police. A further five prints were provided later by Essex police after the force had carried out further checks at the Commission's request to ensure that we had possession of all available images (of these five extra prints, three show the outside of Whitehouse Farm and two show a blue Leyland van.)
 
The Commission has already made all 401 negatives available for inspection by Mr Bamber's representatives, including a photographic expert, on several occasions. Many of the negatives were disclosed to Mr Bamber and his representatives during the original trial and at the two subsequent appeals.
 
Mr Bamber's solicitor formally requested further access to all the case related photographic negatives in the Commission's possession on 21st March 2011. Several dozen of the negatives in our possession are post mortem images of the victims in this case and it would be entirely inappropriate to simply supply those images in an uncontrolled way. Following discussions with Essex police with whom the copyright of remains, we have now approached Mr Bamber and his team with a proposal to allow them access to the material they require and to permit prints to be made of all the negatives in our possession. We have attached some conditions to the handling of the material. These conditions are designed to ensure that Mr Bamber and his team have full access to the material they need, but that the negatives and images remain accounted for and do not find their way into the public domain.
 
When the period for further submissions ended, the Commission will consider Mr Bamber's case again in light of any further submissions received and make a final decision about whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

It would be inappropriate for us to offer any further comment on the case at this point.
 
 Justin Hawkins
Head of Communication
Criminal Cases Review Commission
[email protected]

[mertol22]

No Hartley you are missing the point why were the jury only shown a selection of the pictures , pre arranged and all vetted of course but still only a handfull,
timepieces around the house may offer an alternative story, the police did not release all the pictures why not?

[Hartley]

No Hartley you are missing the point why were the jury only shown a selection of the pictures , pre arranged and all vetted of course but still only a handfull,
timepieces around the house may offer an alternative story, the police did not release all the pictures why not?

There is a certain lack of understanding here I'm afraid. The Jury did not even see all of the evidence and documentation which was available to the defence.

There is an argument to say the defence was not aware of something, but there is not an argument to say that the Jury was not aware when the defence were.

The police have now released all of the images, or at least according to the statements made by the CCRC, all images are now available. Your query about photographs showing time pieces is a very good observation, however the defence, if they were not already, are now (in my opinion) (and in the CCRC's opinion) in possession of any and all images which may include such time piece confirmation.

However there are also witness statements from the photographer indicating the time of such photos, if any exist.

 

[ngb1066]

I agree with NGB, surely to know the photo's are overexposed they would have to be developed.but also,prior to digital photo's i,as my father taught me,used a 35mm and film you "threaded" into the camera spool. on closing the camera i would take 2 or 3 photo's with the lens cap on to ensure that any possible light contamination of the film had been "spooled" and fresh film was ready to go. Just a thought,could that be the reason for "missing"negatives?

The negative strips were of sufficient length to permit the process you have described to be followed, then for ten exposures, with a further length of film unused (I am not explaining this well but I hope you follow what I am saying).  Most strips contained ten exposed negatives.  Others had individual frames removed, sometimes more than one, and in one specific case eight frames had been cropped from the start of the strip, leaving only two.  I therefore very much doubt if your suggestion is the reason behind the missing negatives.  The interesting and in my view significant point is that these negatives have been cropped from the strips.  There is no sensible and legitimate reason for doing that.

[Hartley]

The negative strips were of sufficient length to permit the process you have described to be followed, then for ten exposures, with a further length of film unused (I am not explaining this well but I hope you follow what I am saying).  Most strips contained ten exposed negatives.  Others had individual frames removed, sometimes more than one, and in one specific case eight frames had been cropped from the start of the strip, leaving only two.  I therefore very much doubt if your suggestion is the reason behind the missing negatives.  The interesting and in my view significant point is that these negatives have been cropped from the strips.  There is no sensible and legitimate reason for doing that.

Is there anything which can corroborate what you have stated?

[tonyb]

understood, i thought i'd throw the reason for all my 35mm negatives to have 3(ish) missing per film for those unaware of that type of photography.

[ngb1066]

Is there any way in which the defence can prove that photographs are still being withheld?

No, the defence are not able to prove that any photographs are still being withheld as the missing negatives have been cut from the strips and may well have been destroyed.  They could of course still be in existence somewhere but Essex Police have told the CCRC that they have provided all the negatives which they still have. 

[ngb1066]

Is there anything which can corroborate what you have stated?

Yes, one of Peter Sutherst's reports deals with this in detail and information about the Essex Police explanation is contained in the CCRC's PSOR document.  For obvious reasons I am not able to post either document here.

[Hartley]

Yes, one of Peter Sutherst's reports deals with this in detail and information about the Essex Police explanation is contained in the CCRC's PSOR document.  For obvious reasons I am not able to post either document here.

Yes of course, and I'm not asking you to, thank you for your replies.

Without wanting to ask a question that you are unable to answer, I'll just state my view, which is that I would then expect the 'cropped negatives' to form one of the grounds of appeal submitted to the CCRC under the current application.

[Buddy]

There are no withheld pictures, there are 8 negatives missing which the police state were overexposed and not developed.

Just got back in Steve so I am working my way through this thread.
Load of crap about the over exposed pictures.
Just read the rest and it is all crap,
EP deliberately with held images that the defence team should have been privy to.
RWBs mention of Oh no uncle Bobby I could quite easily kill my parents is crap also.
Why would JB make such a statement. " I told him not to be stupid, and walked away"
Down right lie.
Did RWB mention this to Ralph. No. He was so disgusted by this comment that he kept it to himself, until the moment he could do a land grab.
Are the family still rich Steve, as DB said the money is all gone! Not spendthrift then?
I hear the family may have to sell up, is this true? Are they walking away?
The cops found absolutely nothing to implicate JB, but the family found it all.
This is a poor reflection on the rozzers, or a stroke of brilliance on behalf of the Famiily who inherited the family wealth.
Whoever was responsible in this tragedy the Boutflours, Pargeter, and the Eatons certainly gained