Its normal for police to put someone in the frame...

[mike tesko]

Framing a suspect - its something that occurs all the time...

[mike tesko]

Evidence has to be gathered and put into a purpose built file - in order to increase the prospects of getting a conviction, police have to gather enough information, which can be looked upon as different pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The manner with which these pieces of the jigsaw are collected and filed, determines whether or not, the frame up, was legitimate, or compromized...

[mike tesko]

In normal circumstances, there would only be, just the one case file - into this file, would be placed, all the evidence, and a decision made at some point, as to whether some, all of it, will be disclosed, or withheld...

[mike tesko]

It is not normal, to have a second file, into which any evidence, or information, or photographs, that the police, or the DPP, do not want a defendant to see, or to know about, where the intentiion is not to disclose any of it...

[mike tesko]

If, the police, and or, the DPP, start editing material, information, or photographs, .-  in one of these files, and the edited material, is then incorporated into the other file with a view of disclosure, it is deceitful to conceal the original unedited material, in the witheld file...

[mike tesko]

In Bambers case, material gathered and placed in the original file, was designed to show and establish, that Sheila Caffell killed the others, and then herself, material that would have strengthened Bambers defense, had such material been disclosed...

[mike tesko]

SC/688/85 - the original file, in existence from 7th August 1985, to 6th September 1985. This file contains no information at all, about alledged find of silencer in gun cupboard on 10th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

The only references to find of silencer - are recorded in new file (SC/786/85), which did not come into existence, until 6th September 1985...

[Newbury1]

The only references to find of silencer - are recorded in new file (SC/786/85), which did not come into existence, until 6th September 1985...

Mike, I reiterate, with so much reference and reliance being placed on the original file (SC/688/85), what if anything can be done to get it disclosed?

Can any public pressure be put on it, say in the form of a petition? 

If it is going to stay unavailable reference to it and its possible contents becomes irrelevant.

[mike tesko]

The only references to find of silencer - are recorded in new file (SC/786/85), which did not come into existence, until 6th September 1985...

Mike, I reiterate, with so much reference and reliance being placed on the original file (SC/688/85), what if anything can be done to get it disclosed?

Can any public pressure be put on it, say in the form of a petition? 

If it is going to stay unavailable reference to it and its possible contents becomes irrelevant.

... The very first mention of finding a silencer, by any of the relatives, was made in a witness statement, dated, 12th September 1985. No signed exhibit label bearing any signature from a relative, existed before new file (SC/786/85) came into existence. There is something that can be done, on Jeremy's behalf...

[Newbury1]

The only references to find of silencer - are recorded in new file (SC/786/85), which did not come into existence, until 6th September 1985...

Mike, I reiterate, with so much reference and reliance being placed on the original file (SC/688/85), what if anything can be done to get it disclosed?

Can any public pressure be put on it, say in the form of a petition? 

If it is going to stay unavailable reference to it and its possible contents becomes irrelevant.

... The very first mention of finding a silencer, by any of the relatives, was made in a witness statement, dated, 12th September 1985. No signed exhibit label bearing any signature from a relative, existed before new file (SC/786/85) came into existence. There is something that can be done, on Jeremy's behalf...

And that is?

[Hartley]

........ There is something that can be done, on Jeremy's behalf...

Which is?

[mike tesko]

What you have to do, is gather up all the available evidence, about the silencer, and apply to the high court, for a Writ of Habeous Corpus - which means in legal jargon, "give us the body", which should secure the relevant parts of the original file, SC/688/85, necessary to prove or establish that the silencer was not found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, because no record exists in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove it...

[Newbury1]

What you have to do, is gather up all the available evidence, about the silencer, and apply to the high court, for a Writ of Habeous Corpus - which means in legal jargon, "give us the body", which should secure the relevant parts of the original file, SC/688/85, necessary to prove or establish that the silencer was not found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, because no record exists in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove it...

So what you are effectively saying, in realistic terms, is that the original file is going to remain unobtainable, and therefore making any reference to it becomes irrelevant?

[Hartley]

What you have to do, is gather up all the available evidence, about the silencer, and apply to the high court, for a Writ of Habeous Corpus - which means in legal jargon, "give us the body", which should secure the relevant parts of the original file, SC/688/85, necessary to prove or establish that the silencer was not found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, because no record exists in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove it...

Okay. But just to play devils advocate.

If there is no record in the original file then would that actually prove that the silencer was not found in the gun cupboard on 10/08/85.

I know one would say hang on a minute, why isn't it there in that file, this is a bit fishy, but in Law would it actually prove that it was not found?