I have managed to retrieve some documents, from my 2004 drive...

[vidvic]

Ye Gods Vic,,how long do you think it takes sifting through years of condensed information on a hard drive.? Not one hard drive,,but a few.

Not very long. Just transferred 750gb in about 4 hours. Type "Sheila" into the search box and he'd find the pic in minutes.

[susan]

Vidvic if EP had more evidence to prove Jeremy Bamber guilty of the murder of his family they would have used it at Trial.  They had very little evidence a silencer which seems to be now brought into a doubt and testimony from a jilted girl friend with much to gain in testifying against her former lover big cash reward and no charges brought against her for her own criminal activities without her they would not have got a conviction so they would have used every bit of evidence they had.  They did not get a majority verdict one more in his favour he would have walked.  This is of course how I see the situation evidence destroyed is usually done for the benefit of the Police.

[vidvic]

Don't fret,Vic,,if anything that was destroyed proved Jeremys' guilt,,,,it wouldn't have been destroyed,would it.? Just logig really.

As you don't believe in any tests, then it wouldn't make any difference either way!

[vidvic]

Vidvic if EP had more evidence to prove Jeremy Bamber guilty of the murder of his family they would have used it at Trial.  They had very little evidence a silencer which seems to be now brought into a doubt and testimony from a jilted girl friend with much to gain in testifying against her former lover big cash reward and no charges brought against her for her own criminal activities without her they would not have got a conviction so they would have used every bit of evidence they had.  They did not get a majority verdict one more in his favour he would have walked.  This is of course how I see the situation evidence destroyed is usually done for the benefit of the Police.

I don't agree Susan. Advances in criminal science could have made them more useful either now or in the future. 

[grahameb]

Hi everyone

I have now photographed the portable device, bar code and serial numbers on the device, upon which the relevant material, documentation, emails, letters and photographs have been / were transferred from other versions of hard drives from previous computers, owned and used by myself - I will be posting images of the device in question very soon, before I start to upload material contained upon it...

Please be patient...

Just take it to a computer shop Mike. They can sometimes recover data from damaged drives. Easiest way.

[grahameb]

Who keeps removing my posts?

Not me. I promise.

[grahameb]

I'm afraid that gives a false picture of the interrogation process lookout and I advise members to read the documents again,especially those conducted on 10 and 11 September 1985. Let us put ourselves in Jeremy's shoes and for convenience's sake imagine that you are the innocent victim for one moment. You have lost five members of your family:wouldn't this be the point you would be incessantly repeating,along with trying to make them believe in a desperate telephone call from your father who may have known his life was coming to an end? Anyone would go to desperate lengths to talk on any subject broached by Police in an attempt to clear ones name,instead of many hours of cat and mouse with Jeremy using every stalling tactic in the book including refreshment and toilet breaks when he was not picking threads deliberately from his white Arran jumper.

How do you know that Jeremy did not do this. We only have the "written" police documentation as to how the interview was conducted. They do not record "passion" and "concern" in the interviewee.
In fact is appears to me that JB got bery angry with this contibued "interogation" by the police. The police could have written anything they wanted so as to make it "appear" that JB was uncooperative. And I suggest that they did conduct the so called interview in that way. For that is how police do things.

[grahameb]

Hi Vidvic I have read that EP were told not to destroy evidence would this be the evidence destroyed in 1996 and why destroy evidence at all.  I have been given to understand that evidence that has been held is now coming to light and could put some of the myths to bed I do hope so as it is a very confusing case.  We shall just have to wait and see but I do appreciate your alternative take on this case it would be boring if we all thought the same and it is nice to see you back

They did seem over keen to destroy things "on the button" so to speak, didn't they Susan?

[lookout]

As you don't believe in any tests, then it wouldn't make any difference either way!

But it would have made all the difference if any tests contained Jeremys' hair or blood. 

[susan]

Grahame I thought they were quick to destroy evidence and I cannot understand the reason for this as they had so little evidence and if Jeremy had won an Appeal and the silencer evidence challenged EP may have got something else to convict Jeremy of the murders.  Very bizarre indeed one would think they were trying to cover something up. Surely not.

[Alias]

You´d think the EP would want to keep the physical evidence simply because they know that Jeremy keeps appealing his conviction. With the evidence intact they would be able to effectively put a stop to Jeremy´s constant appeals - or not?
Funny how it happened in 1996, exactly around the time DNA science gained massive ground and proved the innocence of a multitude of prisones who were released from prison - many of them from death row in the USA. Just a funny little detail that makes you wonder.
The people who destroyed the evidence made a conscious decision to go into whatever room, take the boxes containing the evidence, then destroy/discard it somehow. All the while knowing that what they were doing was ILLEGAL. They must have had REASON to take such a chance, you´d think.

[susan]

Alias this was the point I was making they were in a hurry to get rid of evidence even though they had been told not to do and it must have been to their advantage to do this knowing they should not have destroyed evidence It would appear they were not answerable to anyone and it is a total disgrace but hey ho they did it and got away with it they must have something to hide IMO surely this is evident to all.

[Alias]

Alias this was the point I was making they were in a hurry to get rid of evidence even though they had been told not to do and it must have been to their advantage to do this knowing they should not have destroyed evidence It would appear they were not answerable to anyone and it is a total disgrace but hey ho they did it and got away with it they must have something to hide IMO surely this is evident to all.

I sometimes throw this question at the nons, but they never answer.... Why do you think all the physical evidence was destroyed by the Essex Police in 1996?

[susan]

Alias they will always have an answer for you not always feasible but nevertheless they do not ignore you

[mike tesko]

Oh Mike,,that is a long and tedious task that you've set yourself. Well done to you,,as it shows your unending loyalty to see this case through.

Hi Lookout,

I am now ready to post images of the device upon which all the 2003 / 2004 material was transferred to and stored from the individual hard drives used at the material time...