Question Re 'Firearms Team Are In Conversation'

[maggie]

Hello Patti, its old ground and i am really rusty, did Jeremy use this very strong alibi in his defence without me having to recheck i think it was dismissed if i am right?

Hi Ralf, good to see you back, are you here to be smitten? 

[maggie]

Hi Ralf.  I know his campaign team have used it and its also been in the papers and reported to be new evidence.  I suppose it was put in the submissions as a ground to the CCRC and it was dismissed.  The only person that would know for sure is NGB....Mind you I have a copy of the submissions...somewhere...

It's one of those things which cannot be proved imo Patti/Ralph, it is all a bit ambiguous to me. Without concrete proof of a conversation having taken place I doubt it can be used as evidence?? 

[Patti]

It's one of those things which cannot be proved imo Patti/Ralph, it is all a bit ambiguous to me. Without concrete proof of a conversation having taken place I doubt it can be used as evidence?? 

Maggie I am just thinking about what Jeremy said to Eric Ericsson....I know I was outside when the police  were in contact with my family and they know...He goes on to say I haven't revealed all my hand to the CCRC....

But, you are right there is no proof...that a conversation did occur.. But, I can understand Jeremy thinking that they did when he read that log.......

[guest7363]

Hi Ralf.  I know his campaign team have used it and its also been in the papers and reported to be new evidence.  I suppose it was put in the submissions as a ground to the CCRC and it was dismissed.  The only person that would know for sure is NGB....Mind you I have a copy of the submissions...somewhere...

Thanks Patti always so nice to talk to you, you never get agitated, mind you only live round corner?

[maggie]

Maggie I am just thinking about what Jeremy said to Eric Ericsson....I know I was outside when the police  were in contact with my family and they know...He goes on to say I haven't revealed all my hand to the CCRC....

But, you are right there is no proof...that a conversation did occur.. But, I can understand Jeremy thinking that they did when he read that log.......

Me too Patti, I'm not saying it didn't happen, it's quite possible it may have but without solid proof it's not much use imo.  This is the problem with so many features of the crime and the destruction of so much evidence and withholding of other evidence just adds to the confusion imo.

[Patti]

Thanks Patti always so nice to talk to you, you never get agitated, mind you only live round corner?

Would that be the right corner or the left one...lol Always the gent of all gents Ralf. 

[Patti]

Me too Patti, I'm not saying it didn't happen, it's quite possible it may have but without solid proof it's not much use imo.  This is the problem with so many features of the crime and the destruction of so much evidence and withholding of other evidence just adds to the confusion imo.

Every little bit adds though Maggie, no matter what it is, it gives a wonderful argument in court should ever there be a re-trial.....Its not us that need convincing it would be a jury.  They would not know what we do....so in they might believe it...they might not. 

[guest7363]

Hi Ralf, good to see you back, are you here to be smitten? 

Hi Maggie thanks for that i do read your posts regular you are very sensible and calm. I used to like the smites i thought it was and should be treated as fun. But some people do get worked up over nothing i could get 1000 smites would not bother me in the slightest. I do sometimes ask questions a little naughty but please dont take offence.

[maggie]

I don't mind at all 

Surely though an armed response team, even back in 1985 would have to produce a written account of an incident they were involved in? 

I know things were perhaps not as stringent then as they are now, but the account of events from the Armed Response unit surely *must* have existed somewhere, at some time? I wish I knew a police officer so I could ask the question.

I can't find the information online that tells me definitively though. I did find some articles that suggested that armed police are sent out routinely when reports of incidents involving firearms come in & that most of the time the incidents they're called out to are benign.

I'm so frustrated by this case, literally nothing adds up or makes sense & there's more than one thing that is so incredibly ambiguous that it's just simply impossible to judge whether it helps or hurts Jeremy's case

Hi EM, you would think that back in 1985 things would have been pretty stringent.  It was before the terrorist threat which has meant there are far more easily available armed police than there were back then.  A siege situation with firearms was quite unusual I would think, they certainly were far from gungho about issuing firearms.  I agree there surely must be/have been some official document/report about the events of the siege. ?

[mertol22]

I believe it was a failed attempt to establish contact with an occupant other than that nothing points towards and female by name. What would be worth knowing is if verbal warning was given to the forced entry.

[EnquiringMind]

It's one of those things which cannot be proved imo Patti/Ralph, it is all a bit ambiguous to me. Without concrete proof of a conversation having taken place I doubt it can be used as evidence?? 

I think that's probably the point I'm trying to make. As in...if a conversation in the correct form of the word didn't ever take place then it would have been extremely easy to be able to put that ambiguity to bed by producing the armed response teams reports from that night. If it didn't take place surely the reports would have gone along the lines of

'PC XYZ attempted to make contact with occupants of the farmhouse, via loud hailer, however all attempts were met with silence from within the farmhouse'

If such a conversation did however take place, no matter how brief it was, maybe just a shout or a scream heard from inside the farmhouse that led to the armed response unit attempting to make contact, then those reports would not align with the direction the case was going in & that would explain why they were never brought up, or used in court.

It would all be a lot more pertinent also if JB was at the time it happened, with a police officer, outside the grounds of the farmhouse ringing JM.

Please understand I am not claiming that anyone shouted, screamed or spoke from inside the farmhouse, so please don't jump on my words 

All I'm saying us that every police unit is accountable for logging everything that happens at incidents that they attend & even in 1985 I doubt (although of course, I don't know for sure) that they would have all just left the scene, gone back to the station, handed their guns in & then gone home without having to fill in the necessary paperwork recording the events.

[maggie]

Hi Maggie thanks for that i do read your posts regular you are very sensible and calm. I used to like the smites i thought it was and should be treated as fun. But some people do get worked up over nothing i could get 1000 smites would not bother me in the slightest. I do sometimes ask questions a little naughty but please dont take offence.

Hi Ralf you are never offensive and never VERY naughty think we can cope with a little naughtiness 

[maggie]

I think that's probably the point I'm trying to make. As in...if a conversation in the correct form of the word didn't ever take place then it would have been extremely easy to be able to put that ambiguity to bed by producing the armed response teams reports from that night. If it didn't take place surely the reports would have gone along the lines of

'PC XYZ attempted to make contact with occupants of the farmhouse, via loud hailer, however all attempts were met with silence from within the farmhouse'

If such a conversation did however take place, no matter how brief it was, maybe just a shout or a scream heard from inside the farmhouse that led to the armed response unit attempting to make contact, then those reports would not align with the direction the case was going in & that would explain why they were never brought up, or used in court.

It would all be a lot more pertinent also if JB was at the time it happened, with a police officer, outside the grounds of the farmhouse ringing JM.

Please understand I am not claiming that anyone shouted, screamed or spoke from inside the farmhouse, so please don't jump on my words 

All I'm saying us that every police unit is accountable for logging everything that happens at incidents that they attend & even in 1985 I doubt (although of course, I don't know for sure) that they would have all just left the scene, gone back to the station, handed their guns in & then gone home without having to fill in the necessary paperwork recording the events.

I do agree with you EM and this is the frustration in many events of the night which continually pose the question  as to why these reports/docs disappeared and as you rightly state the answer many of us arrive at most often is if it was to EPs  advantage we would have seen them.

[HMEssex]

I think that's probably the point I'm trying to make. As in...if a conversation in the correct form of the word didn't ever take place then it would have been extremely easy to be able to put that ambiguity to bed by producing the armed response teams reports from that night. If it didn't take place surely the reports would have gone along the lines of

'PC XYZ attempted to make contact with occupants of the farmhouse, via loud hailer, however all attempts were met with silence from within the farmhouse'
If such a conversation did however take place, no matter how brief it was, maybe just a shout or a scream heard from inside the farmhouse that led to the armed response unit attempting to make contact, then those reports would not align with the direction the case was going in & that would explain why they were never brought up, or used in court.

It would all be a lot more pertinent also if JB was at the time it happened, with a police officer, outside the grounds of the farmhouse ringing JM.

Please understand I am not claiming that anyone shouted, screamed or spoke from inside the farmhouse, so please don't jump on my words 

All I'm saying us that every police unit is accountable for logging everything that happens at incidents that they attend & even in 1985 I doubt (although of course, I don't know for sure) that they would have all just left the scene, gone back to the station, handed their guns in & then gone home without having to fill in the necessary paperwork recording the events.

As far as we know.

What held the fire arms team back for 3 and half hours, knowing there were 2 children at risk in the farmhouse?

They eventually stormed the house, or used stealth (why if they didn't hear anyone?).  Why then?

[Roch]

As far as we know.

What held the fire arms team back for 3 and half hours, knowing there were 2 children at risk in the farmhouse?

They eventually stormed the house, or used stealth (why if they didn't hear anyone?).  Why then?

Great post. Presumably, we are expected to believe they were delayed by a deathly silent farmhouse.