Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[bloggs and son]

What enquiries recognise that?

The enquiry into how the police handled and investigated the case for one.

[Bridget]

The enquiry into how the police handled and investigated the case for one.

Again, what enquiry? You said that all enquiries had concluded that this is a MoJ. I don't know of any enquiry that has come to that conclusion.

[Nuala]

Again, what enquiry? You said that all enquiries had concluded that this is a MoJ. I don't know of any enquiry that has come to that conclusion.

I took Grahame to be speaking euphemistically

[bloggs and son]

Again, what enquiry? You said that all enquiries had concluded that this is a MoJ. I don't know of any enquiry that has come to that conclusion.

I don't think I said that?

[Bridget]

I took Grahame to be speaking euphemistically

A euphemism for what?

[Bridget]

I don't think I said that?

Yes you did if you read your post. Perhaps you didn't mean to.

[Nuala]

A euphemism for what?

Bit if a clumsy expression, I mean to suggest that I took Grahame to be referring to enquiries here and in the press.

[guest154]

Bit if a clumsy expression, I mean to suggest that I took Grahame to be referring to enquiries here and in the press.

Still, I don't think so? Because ALL the press don't believe Bamber innocent?

[Nuala]

Still, I don't think so? Because ALL the press don't believe Bamber innocent?

Thanks, Mat, good point. I was taking nonsense.

[Bridget]

Thanks, Mat, good point. I was taking nonsense.

Lol, refreshing!

[Nuala]

Lol, refreshing!

It was the truth.

[bloggs and son]

Yes you did if you read your post. Perhaps you didn't mean to.

No. What I meant to say but it it came over badly was that these enquiries have shown that there was a lot of evidence that was not looked at. Like the submission of new photos of the crime scene for instance on which the CCRC ruled that the testimonies of the police officers were greater evidence than any photographic evidence. This in itself indicates that there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Mat said that any new photograph would be sufficient. But new photographic evidence WAS presented but was dismissed by the CCRC as not being evidence because the sworn police statements were stronger evidence. That surely may be the law, But it certainly is not justice. New evidence seen to be dismissed by the CCRC.

[guest154]

No. What I meant to say but it it came over badly was that these enquiries have shown that there was a lot of evidence that was not looked at. Like the submission of new photos of the crime scene for instance on which the CCRC ruled that the testimonies of the police officers were greater evidence than any photographic evidence. This in itself indicates that there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Mat said that any new photograph would be sufficient. But new photographic evidence WAS presented but was dismissed by the CCRC as not being evidence because the sworn police statements were stronger evidence. That surely may be the law, But it certainly is not justice. New evidence seen to be dismissed by the CCRC.

Maybe you've quoted me a little wrong there, Grahame. I said any photo would be sufficient for what?

[Bridget]

Maybe you've quoted me a little wrong there, Grahame. I said any photo would be sufficient for what?

Certainly a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound would be sufficient to throw a spanner in the prosecution works but...

[guest154]

Certainly a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound would be sufficient to throw a spanner in the prosecution works but...

Oh absolutely! If that picture existed then I'd be the first calling for it to be revealed. But other than that, I can't think of any other picture that would make a difference in this case.

I remember in one of the submissions there was a picture submitted regarding the scratch marks.....even though the actual area that was scratched wasn't fully visible.....Seriously.

Not just ANY picture can be used - it has to DIRECTLY - go against something already decided as fact in the case.