still time for one last throw of the dice - before CCRC close case...

[Bridget]

My point wasn't relative to whether or not they were admissible in court.  They are certainly in use across a range of services both here and the U.S.  Now if the point is that he passed because he is experiencing either self deception about the murders he committed or he somehow manipulated the tester, doesn't it seem a queer stroke of fate that Dr. Vincent Egan tested him for these very same traits and drew a blank?  Is he so brilliant that he can at will, switch on and off his self deception and manipulation towards the tester?  Or perhaps is there is a more simple answer?

I'm not sure what you mean by this... is it in relation to the fingerprint question?
Pull the other one.  Look at the timing.  Look what else was going on in the case at that time.  Why carry out a review while a bloody silencer awaits testing?
How come DCI taff Jones officially has no connection to the main exhibit in the case, yet it is supposed to have been discovered during his tenure?
So they falsified a discovery date in the schedules, including the phone call from DB?

He passed because lie detector tests are inaccurate. He may also have deceived himself into believing he was telling the truth. Are the further tests accepted as being accurate, and if so, to what extent?

I thought you were asking why the silencer wasn't found when they fingerprinted the house - they weren't looking for it.

I don't know why they had the review when they did. Maybe it was standard procedure, or maybe stan jones had been making waves.

What sort of connection are you expecting to see with Taff jones?

What makes you say they falsified the discovery date?

[mike tesko]

Since we have not heard anything to the contrary, CCRC could be reviewing the final statement of reason to see if Bambers legal team arguments might stand up at judicial review?

[ngb1066]

Since we have not heard anything to the contrary, CCRC could be reviewing the final statement of reason to see if Bambers legal team arguments might stand up at judicial review?

They could be Mike.

[mike tesko]

They could be Mike.

if yes, they could still refer case to court of appeal to save face, and let court of appeal deal with the matter...

[ngb1066]

if yes, they could still refer case to court of appeal to save face, and let court of appeal deal with the matter...

They could do that.

[Roch]

He passed because lie detector tests are inaccurate. He may also have deceived himself into believing he was telling the truth. Are the further tests accepted as being accurate, and if so, to what extent?

I thought you were asking why the silencer wasn't found when they fingerprinted the house - they weren't looking for it.

I don't know why they had the review when they did. Maybe it was standard procedure, or maybe stan jones had been making waves.

What sort of connection are you expecting to see with Taff jones?

What makes you say they falsified the discovery date?

Your answer regarding the tests suggests you have not read properly the post that you are replying to?  It seems to completely ignore the points I made.  That's an extremely bold statement you have made re him passing the test.  Are you suggesting that the Lafayette Instrument software or paraphenalia incorrectly read or processed the data?

White House Farm was fingerprinted on around the 8th September, if memory serves me correctly.  So how could the discovery of the silencer be linked to fingerprint dust, if the silencer was found on 10th August?

The discovery date for the silencer is in a police schedule.  It relates to a telephone conversation on 11th September, curiously, three days after the premises had been fingerprinted, thereby tying in with the info received from prosecution witness to the effect that there was fingerprint dust all over the shop.

Some sort of connection, wouldn't you think?  Unless of course, he was not part of the plans that were being hatched.  He certainly does not seem to want to be involved in gunning for Bamber.  Yet it's a bit far fetched that he would during his tenure, fail to realise the significance of a blood stained silencer.  Unless of course, it was bogus?

[Bridget]

Your answer regarding the tests suggests you have not read properly the post that you are replying to?  It seems to completely ignore the points I made.  That's an extremely bold statement you have made re him passing the test.  Are you suggesting that the Lafayette Instrument software or paraphenalia incorrectly read or processed the data?

White House Farm was fingerprinted on around the 8th September, if memory serves me correctly.  So how could the discovery of the silencer be linked to fingerprint dust, if the silencer was found on 10th August?

The discovery date for the silencer is in a police schedule.  It relates to a telephone conversation on 11th September, curiously, three days after the premises had been fingerprinted, thereby tying in with the info received from prosecution witness to the effect that there was fingerprint dust all over the shop.

Some sort of connection, wouldn't you think?  Unless of course, he was not part of the plans that were being hatched.  He certainly does not seem to want to be involved in gunning for Bamber.  Yet it's a bit far fetched that he would during his tenure, fail to realise the significance of a blood stained silencer.  Unless of course, it was bogus?

Roch, I've been posting from a phone, have you any idea how difficult it is to sort out your enormous posts on a thing less that the size of the palm of your hand? 

What point are you trying to make about the LD test? You seem to be saying that he can't have passed by self deceit because he passed some other test for that. I'm asking how accurate the further tests are known to be - you know, like a court would?

I didn't link the silencer to the fingerprinting, you did.

Maybe you could provide a link to the schedule with the discovery date?

What I'm asking you is why do you think there is no connection - what do you think you should be seeing? For example, the reference numbers given to each item bear he initials of the finder, not the DCI, what is it that you are not seeing that you think you should?

[JackiePreece]

Your answer regarding the tests suggests you have not read properly the post that you are replying to?  It seems to completely ignore the points I made.  That's an extremely bold statement you have made re him passing the test.  Are you suggesting that the Lafayette Instrument software or paraphenalia incorrectly read or processed the data?

White House Farm was fingerprinted on around the 8th September, if memory serves me correctly.  So how could the discovery of the silencer be linked to fingerprint dust, if the silencer was found on 10th August?

The discovery date for the silencer is in a police schedule.  It relates to a telephone conversation on 11th September, curiously, three days after the premises had been fingerprinted, thereby tying in with the info received from prosecution witness to the effect that there was fingerprint dust all over the shop.

Some sort of connection, wouldn't you think?  Unless of course, he was not part of the plans that were being hatched.  He certainly does not seem to want to be involved in gunning for Bamber.  Yet it's a bit far fetched that he would during his tenure, fail to realise the significance of a blood stained silencer.  Unless of course, it was bogus?

[JackiePreece]

Excellent points Rochy !!!

[mike tesko]

For the attention of all members and visitors:-

Please note that the CCRC decision is not yet final, and as such those who are trying to force my hand because I said I would undertake certain actions once it was given, they should think long and hard about how they are wrongly interpreting what I have been saying...

It's not over yet...

[JackiePreece]

Mike I totally agree

[Roch]

Roch, I've been posting from a phone, have you any idea how difficult it is to sort out your enormous posts on a thing less that the size of the palm of your hand? 

What point are you trying to make about the LD test? You seem to be saying that he can't have passed by self deceit because he passed some other test for that. I'm asking how accurate the further tests are known to be - you know, like a court would?

I didn't link the silencer to the fingerprinting, you did.

Maybe you could provide a link to the schedule with the discovery date?

What I'm asking you is why do you think there is no connection - what do you think you should be seeing? For example, the reference numbers given to each item bear he initials of the finder, not the DCI, what is it that you are not seeing that you think you should?

My apologies, I hadn't factored in you were restricted in that way    We will continue this another time, over different threads no doubt.  In the meantime, it's the 10th Aug RB diary re the fingerprinting.
Telephone message report 44 and telephone message 38 are in relation to the discovery of the silencer.   I'm not sure if this doc relates to either of those...