There is no evidence of the date and time when police officers in this case made witness statements which they signed, but there is evidence that unsigned and undated statements made on their behalf were accepted by the DPP, and so how in these circumstances can any of these statements be more reliable than crime scene photographs?
It doesn't make any sense...
How anyone can say with any degree of certainty, that the two conflicting crime scene photographs which show the barrel of the rifle in two positions against Sheila's neck, (a) muzzle resting beneath chin, and (b) barrel resting against left side of neck, might not mean that the gun had been moved at all, is beyond my comprehension...
How can the position of guns barrel be in two different positions against Sheila's neck, if police are not responsible for moving it?
I disagree with the suggestion that even if the photographs do show that police moved her body, that it does not prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent? Of course it does, especially if any of those stage managed images were used and relied upon to help convict him. He is only convicted because the jury considered evidence available to them at the time they were being asked to acquit him, or convict him, and some of these stage managed photographs, were given to the jury, to help them make up their minds...
If the any crime scene photographs which they jury used and referred to are/were dodgy, then of course the convictions are dodgy, there's nothing complicated about working that out...
Photographic evidence which was/is dodgy, and these are being compared or considered against a statement which was/is/are purporting to have been made by police officers in this case, considering that DPP received them, on and after 19th September 1985, unsigned, undated, and that the DPP edited them in the absence of the individual officers, and none exist bearing any original signatures of the officers concerned it can only lead to one sound conclusion - all the evidence that was used and relied upon to prosecute Jeremy is dodgy...
Talk about falsifying evidence, these crooks that run the DPP, and the CPS, and the criminal justice system in general, make up the rules about the legitimacy of statements as they go along, it is treated as evidence when it suits their purpose, but not if it tends to expose corruption and dishonesty. I would like to know under what rule of law another person can make a statement for someone else in their absence, undated, unsigned, and edit it, in their absence? What kind of evidence is it, that is born out of such circumstances?
