Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside farmhouse

[andrea]

But arent witnesess given their statements before they take to the stand?

Surely they would have questioned any changes made to them.

[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?

I personally would not say that was corrupt if the original contents had been disclosed so that the defence could see what the witness in question originally said, and what the DPP had edited out...

[mike tesko]

But arent witnesess given their statements before they take to the stand?

Surely they would have questioned any changes made to them.

No, but they are often reminded about what they said in their statements, for example, when a disputed point arises during the course of the trial, now the problem here would be that the defence would or might not be able to identify such features, because the statement made in the name of the witness was a composite version, which had been edited, by the DPP to support its own case...

[mike tesko]

What if the screaming and rantings made by Sheila were edited out of the original versions of the firearms officers statements, and not carried over into the composite versions produced by the DPP?

Is this the reason why the CPS and Essex police will not hand over copies of the original versions of those witness statements?

[mike tesko]

Have/has the screaming and rantings of Sheila in response to the challenges made by the police at the scene using a loud hailer,  been edited out of the composite versions of the firearms officers statements?

Why not disclose the original versions of these statements, so that everyone can see what the DPP got up to and why he edited the original contents so that the evidence contained in the revised version of the original statement, in the form of the composite statement, supported its own case?

[mike tesko]

Whilst the DPP was at it, why not edit out any reference to the sighting or finding of a female body in the kitchen, which would have been counter-productive to the claim that police eventually found Sheila's body upstairs in the bedroom on the floor next to the bed with the rifle atop it?

[Hartley]

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.

I'm not convinced, but regardless, let's say that was the case. The defence would have had a copy of the later composite statements and they would have known what they were, they would have been studied in great detail prior to cross-examining any prosecution witnesses, so why didn't they bring this up at the time if it is as important as is being made out?

I don't believe this is as important as is being made out, if it were it would have been given more importance during the various investigations. It would also have been known for some 26 years, this isn't a sudden new revelation.

If it is as is described, could it be that it was simply normal practice at that time?

[Hartley]

What if the screaming and rantings made by Sheila were edited out of the original versions of the firearms officers statements, and not carried over into the composite versions produced by the DPP?

Is this the reason why the CPS and Essex police will not hand over copies of the original versions of those witness statements?

Not even remotely plausible. Especially when there is no evidence of such an incident.

[Hartley]

Have/has the screaming and rantings of Sheila in response to the challenges made by the police at the scene using a loud hailer,  been edited out of the composite versions of the firearms officers statements?

Why not disclose the original versions of these statements, so that everyone can see what the DPP got up to and why he edited the original contents so that the evidence contained in the revised version of the original statement, in the form of the composite statement, supported its own case?

Are you saying that you or the defence do not have any original or hand written notes or statements from the raid team?

[mike tesko]

Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside the farmhouse according to Shaw who spoke to members of the raid team, and other officers, who were present at the scene that morning, Sheila was still alive long after the police arrived at the scene, and she did not die until much later (after police got into farmhouse)...

[mike tesko]

Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside the farmhouse according to Shaw who spoke to members of the raid team, and other officers, who were present at the scene that morning, Sheila was still alive long after the police arrived at the scene, and she did not die until much later (after police got into farmhouse)...

Contact David Shaw and ask him yourselves, if you do not believe me...

[mike tesko]

One of the problems in this case, is that at a debrief held at Witham police station on evening of 7th August 1985, members of the raid team were told by senior officers to write up their notes along the lines of four murders and a suicide and that the bodies had been found where PC Bird later photographed them...

What the all wrote, was dictated to them by senior officers...

[mike tesko]

If anyone has any doubts at all about Sheila screaming obscenities and ranting and raving, they should try to contact David Shaw and ask him if I am not telling the truth?

Ask him, where he got his information from, and ask him to identify the officers who were at the scene at the material time, who witnessed all of this, and who told him?

[Hartley]

Contact David Shaw and ask him yourselves, if you do not believe me...

But that isn't evidence either, Shaw's manuscript stands out particularly because it is unsubstantiated and mostly unreferenced. there are also glaring provable errors/mistakes which are portrayed as fact when they are not. An example of this is where he refers to police action report 1113.

I think you have finally answered my question though. You do not have any evidence or even anything which might hint at your allegations being truthful.

If you were candid from the outset and simply said, 'David Shaw said this happened, I've got no proof though, what do people think?', then you would have saved a lot of face.

That is your ongoing problem, you keep advertising things as indisputable facts, yet when challenged about them, they turn into watered down theories and/or hearsay based on hearsay.

And you have the cheek to suggest that I have made false allegations? To unashamedly quote Grahame - 'One couldn't make it up'.   

[mike tesko]

If anyone has any doubts at all about Sheila screaming obscenities and ranting and raving, they should try to contact David Shaw and ask him if I am not telling the truth?

Ask him, where he got his information from, and ask him to identify the officers who were at the scene at the material time, who witnessed all of this, and who told him?

call him liar and see where that gets you?