The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[Bridget]

Bridget, don't you think you are asking the wrong question? Should it be, why are the police covering up by refusing to release that which they have held from both the prosecution and the defence for 27 years?

No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it

[-Harters-]

Has anyone asked themselves why Jeremy wanted the silencer tested again? If he was guilty then surely this would be the last thing that he would have wanted? Abit like the relatives not wanting everything under PII to be released?

He didn't, the prosecution took it upon themselves to do so in order to respond to Websters expert opinion for the defence at the 2002 appeal.

Your comment regarding what the 'relatives' want, is unfounded, it may or may not be the case, but as far as I am aware, they have not shared any such view, either for or against. I guess the closest thing to it is Davids comments at the end of the recently aired documentary.

[Bridget]

Perhaps some relative who believed JB to be a murderer and just wanted to make sure he went down? As I said Robert Boutflour had the same blood group as Sheila.

Sheila was adopted. We're taking about DNA, not blood.

[guest154]

What do you think could be held under PII, mat?.

Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.


Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.

[andrea]

Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.


Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.

Ok, thanks, mat.

[andrea]

He didn't, the prosecution took it upon themselves to do so in order to respond to Websters expert opinion for the defence at the 2002 appeal.

Your comment regarding what the 'relatives' want, is unfounded, it may or may not be the case, but as far as I am aware, they have not shared any such view, either for or against. I guess the closest thing to it is Davids comments at the end of the recently aired documentary.

Hi Harts 

[Bridget]

Mike posted the list not too long ago, although I think there were a couple of things left off it. There are a few statements under PII as well as detials/pictures of the twins.


Nothing that would get Jeremy out of jail immediately which has been suggested on this board a good few times.

Did he? An actual list as in a document or just things he thinks are held?

[guest154]

I believe it was a document. Looked like a scan.

[-Harters-]

Hi Harts 

Hey 

[Bridget]

I believe it was a document. Looked like a scan.

I don't remember that, and I didn't think there was such a list, point me at it if you come across it again will you?

[guest154]

Yeah, I'll have a look for you now. 

[JackiePreece]

No I don't think so. In order for them to cover stuff up (if that's what is happening) then they must have a reason. I appreciate the fact that someone will say "we don't know what they're covering up since they're covering it up" but I just can't think of anything at all that it could be. Does that make sense? It did when I wrote it

No it doesn't make sense about the PII because there is NO justifiable reason recent evidence regarding Julie Mugford should have been witheld
It was

[guest154]

No it doesn't make sense about the PII because there is NO justifiable reason recent evidence regarding Julie Mugford should have been witheld
It was

Recent? lol... Oh jackie..

I don't remember that, and I didn't think there was such a list, point me at it if you come across it again will you?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87047.html#msg87047

[Bridget]

No it doesn't make sense about the PII because there is NO justifiable reason recent evidence regarding Julie Mugford should have been witheld
It was

What was?

[Bridget]

Recent? lol... Oh jackie..


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87047.html#msg87047

Thanks Mat. Any idea what "Missing schedules and files edited under PII" actually means, or what any of those references refer to?