Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside farmhouse

[mike tesko]

Composite statements are an edited version of what was originally recorded by a witness...

[Hartley]

Indeed, these seem to me to be part of Hartley's time honoured practice and game plan. As soon as you're in a corner, you begin lobbing personal abuse at a fast a furious pace in order to detract from your inability to address the issue or to deal with a point.

You then whine that you are the one being abused and that your victim is the one abusing YOU!

I'm not whining at all, and I certainly don't think I'm in a corner. I also don't believe that I am being impolite without justification, any time that I am is usually in reply to others.

However, as I said above, you are more than welcome to your opinion.

[vidvic]

Now...

Lets get something right...


If anyone wants to keep relying upon these composite statements that were edited by the DPP and say that this is the truth about what each firearms officer saw, and heard, then of course, it is all fantasy, because the words recorded in these composite statements were not made by the police officers themselves, those/these statements are worded and phrased by the DPP to only include parts of the evidence that supported the prosecutions case...

Now...

This cannot be right or lawful, the DPP was a crook just like all those who falsified the evidence that was used to help convict Jeremy, for these murders...

Are you not just arguing against your own logic now?

One minute their views are important the next a work of fiction? Which is it?

[mike tesko]

Composite statements are an edited version of what was originally recorded by a witness...

Now, Jeremy has requested that the original statements, which have had the important bits taken out or removed should be disclosed to him and his legal team, but he has been told that these cannot be disclosed because they are being withheld under pii...


Now...

Why can't Jeremy and his legal team, see what the DPP did by changing the contents of the origuinal witness statements into their final account?

What if there is mention in the original accounts of the screaming and ranting antics of Sheila in the original version of thee statements?

[Hartley]

Now...

Lets get something right...


If anyone wants to keep relying upon these composite statements that were edited by the DPP and say that this is the truth about what each firearms officer saw, and heard, then of course, it is all fantasy, because the words recorded in these composite statements were not made by the police officers themselves, those/these statements are worded and phrased by the DPP to only include parts of the evidence that supported the prosecutions case...

Now...

This cannot be right or lawful, the DPP was a crook just like all those who falsified the evidence that was used to help convict Jeremy, for these murders...

But you yourself have relied on these very statements to put forward theories, so that is a little hypocritical.

[mike tesko]

Are you not just arguing against your own logic now?

One minute their views are important the next a work of fiction? Which is it?

You might be taking my views out of context, since, in some instances I am referring to other peoples point of view, so you could be tying yourself in knots, by suggesting something which might not necessarily be true, now which is it?

[Hartley]

Now, Jeremy has requested that the original statements, which have had the important bits taken out or removed should be disclosed to him and his legal team, but he has been told that these cannot be disclosed because they are being withheld under pii...


Now...

Why can't Jeremy and his legal team, see what the DPP did by changing the contents of the origuinal witness statements into their final account?

What if there is mention in the original accounts of the screaming and ranting antics of Sheila in the original version of thee statements?

I don't buy that either, the original defence team must surely have had access to the original statements, if they did not then they should surely have asked for them.

I think the old 'It's being withheld under PII' is a somewhat grossly overused term.

[mike tesko]

If a composite (unsigned) is a version of the evidence as put together by the DPP and not the witness, how can such evidence be relied upon to help prosecute a person for an offence?

What we want to know is what the prosecution witnesses said in their own version of their evidence, not what the DPP has edited, and had retyped, so as to support their own case...

[Roch]

Hi Rocky, Who do you believe people think Hartley might be?

Various relatives, either by blood or marriage.  I'll leave it at that.

[Hartley]

You might be taking my views out of context, since, in some instances I am referring to other peoples point of view, so you could be tying yourself in knots, by suggesting something which might not necessarily be true, now which is it?

If you are unable to clearly identify your own views from those of others then I hardly think you have the right to be critical to people reading them.

[mike tesko]

Now...

what we have found out, is that the witness statements of prosecution witnesses, has been put together by the DPP in the form of Composite statements, that is edited versions of the original evidence given by witnesses, so that only the parts which support the prosecutions case, are recorded in these composite statements, so what we have here is a situation whereby the DPP decides what a witness needs to say and everything else which is capable of undermining that evidence is edited out, and the original contents not to be disclosed, but which can be withheld under pii - now if this is true the DPP are crooks...

Now..

Lets see in who's name these composite witness statements were made, in addition to the firearms team that stormed whf that morning?

On look:-

relatives, and Julie mugford?

[Hartley]

If a composite (unsigned) is a version of the evidence as put together by the DPP and not the witness, how can such evidence be relied upon to help prosecute a person for an offence?

What we want to know is what the prosecution witnesses said in their own version of their evidence, not what the DPP has edited, and had retyped, so as to support their own case...

Would I be correct in thinking that it is the sworn testimony of witnesses given in court under oath which is what is taken into account by the jury, rather than the witness statements?

In any event, the original defence team would have had access to the originals.

[andrea]

From which room within the house was Sheila allegedly ranting and raving?

[ngb1066]

Would I be correct in thinking that it is the sworn testimony of witnesses given in court under oath which is what is taken into account by the jury, rather than the witness statements?

In any event, the original defence team would have had access to the originals.

They would not unless they were disclosed by the prosecution which in this case they were not.  The defence only had the later edited/composite statements prepared under the instructions of the DPP.

[mike tesko]

Prosecution witness can and did make all manner of different witness statements, and the prosecution chose which parts to incorporated into a composite statement (often unsigned) and based on that evidence contained in that composite statement, when the witness in question attended the trial they were questioned on the contents of the composite statement, which had been put together for them by the DPP on their behalf, now how corrupt is that?