You see I find that part of your post to be slightly strange, considering I have made many lengthy posts on the subject.
Whether something was presented to the Jury or not is unimportant and perhaps highlights your lack of understanding. A more relevant argument would be to ask why something had been withheld from the defence team, thus removing their opportunity to present such evidence to the Jury.
As I have said before on many occasions, I believe the phrase 'It's been withheld under PII' to be grossly overused, I believe that many of the documents claimed to be unavailable, were actually very much available at the original trial, this is very clear by the fact that much of the information is actually contained in trial transcripts, applications to the court of appeal and appeal judgements, a long time before they are claimed to have been released.
Another important factor to consider, is that not a single piece of information or evidence which has been released, indicates that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. That is not simply my opinion, but is taken from the fact that despite two appeals and the current submission to the CCRC, Jeremy's conviction and sentence remains intact.
The upcoming decision of the CCRC will likely reaffirm this point.
There is nothing which has come to light which detracts from the prosecutions case and subsequent Appeal Judgements, I do not automatically consider that something may be withheld and may possibly contain something to contradict this. Something cannot be disclosed if it does not exist.
In my humble opinion.
I have challenged your astonishing claim that the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence is an insignificant matter on several occasions, Hartley.
The fact is that non-disclosure and withheld evidence are major issues in this case, the various proofs of which strongly support the defence's case for a miscarriage of justice.
For goodness sake, Hartley! The defence were forced to take these issues to court. The fact that they were successful in the claim they brought before the court (see the reference to this below - yet again) clearly demonstrates that key evidence was withheld from, not just the defence, but the judge and jury in this case too.
"
With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification.
Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced,
Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not. On receiving the 24 pages, the defence immediately noticed that
the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why?The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused."
The disclosure of the radio message log was not the only dramatic development last March. Bamber's defence had requested only one document. However, perhaps inadvertently, the police also provided evidence that had not been requested—pages from a contemporaneous telephone log and from a contemporaneous incident report. The defence had not known that either existed.
It was immediately apparent that the two logs and the incident report that the police had withheld contained details that were entirely inconsistent with the case put by the prosecution at Bamber's trial. " For you to continue to suggest that for EP to withhold such evidence from the defence, judge and jury was trifling and unimportant - when it is a very clear indication that a serious miscarriage of justice occurred in this case - is astounding Hartley.
How can you continue to look at this case in such a biased and blinkered manner?
