Are there any other murder cases...

[Roch]

Where pii is a controversial issue? 

[jon]

Where pii is a controversial issue?

Many , go to the innocent website , put public interest immunity into search engine

[Roch]

Yeah I've briefly seen that site in connection of this case. This is going to sound naive to some... but I just dont get it. I mean, in relation to alleged 'truth seekers'.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Yes lots....

Where the identity of informants might be an issue, or the techniques used during observations, intimate details of what was carried out, recordings and such like (Lesley Ann Downey being sexually abused on tape).

The more you think about it, the harder it gets... it sounds great for everything to be out in the open until some sick idiots like the idea of putting a photo of your dead child's body on the net etc, or the recordings of her screams....
OR the killer themselves decides to conduct their own defence and would like to see certain pictures....

More obvious ones would be IRA bombing in Brighton... details of the security arrangements might be withheld, or any information that was known beforehand about planned bombings etc.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

The easiest ones to understand are things like 7 July Bombings...

The Police, or security services might not want to tell the world who they were watching, or how they 'monitored' calls, or computer usage etc. Or which of their men was working 'on the inside'.

So they might say "we just KNEW he was involved" and the defence ask HOW?

But they can't tell you because it might be a guy on the inside


Or they might say "we wired up the internet cafe they were using"... and this information might ruin existing operations - making terrorists start securing internet cafes they use etc..

That make sense?

[Roch]

Yes lots....

Where the identity of informants might be an issue, or the techniques used during observations, intimate details of what was carried out, recordings and such like (Lesley Ann Downey being sexually abused on tape).

The more you think about it, the harder it gets... it sounds great for everything to be out in the open until some sick idiots like the idea of putting a photo of your dead child's body on the net etc, or the recordings of her screams....
OR the killer themselves decides to conduct their own defence and would like to see certain pictures....

More obvious ones would be IRA bombing in Brighton... details of the security arrangements might be withheld, or any information that was known beforehand about planned bombings etc.

Good points TBM. But are any of those points relevant to the WHF case?

[jon]

Would you care to tell us how it is sometimes abused ?

[jon]

Kevin Lane was convicted of murder 16 years ago , the policeman leading the case took information for the judges eyes only claiming PII , saying Lane was a contract killer , Lane was convicted , the policeman was later convicted of fraud whilst still serving as a policeman , Lane said on day one the policeman was setting him up and continues to say so to this day ! Also the original man charged with the murder was later convicted of murder carried out in similar circumstances to Lane's . It is also known now that that man was a police informer , i have often wondered who he informed too !!

[Roch]

I'm not an expert on this case. neither do  i have a clever legal mind. But it boils my piss when posters purport to 'seek the truth', if some of that very truth is being withheld, as I'm led to believe is the case. If this is not the case, then I'm open to being educated...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Would you care to tell us how it is sometimes abused ?

In theory it could be abused if the Police tried to claim information in there was of a highly specialised and covert nature etc and a court believed them (this isn't the same court conducting a trial, but one judging the PII case). In a few cases, the court and insist on seeing the information if they suspect they are being misled.

I do not know in the Bamber case if the court chose to actually see the information, but I suspect they would have.

In terms of what might have happened at WHF that should be kept secret....

A special informant / witness who's identity was at stake (would have to be very special grounds though)
Possible surveillance on Jeremy
If Nevill was a spy!!! and being monitored
If WHF was part of some other big investigation (drugs, corruption, etc)

I'm not sure about some stuff, would need to check...
stuff like sheila was in bed with June and Nev (I think you know what I mean) and the kids had been 'grossly' compromised say.
Excepts of radio comms that might give away details on another operation (say Police Car 12 cannot attend, attending rape in next village)

[TheBrilliantMistake]

The people who want the truth (virtually all of us) can moan all we like about stuff we're not allowed to see... it will change nothing.

It doesn't mean those people agree with it, or don't want the truth, it just means we accept we aren't going to get it... so have to try and work with what we CAN get.


I can 100% think of instances where I understand why we can't be told, but I also worry it's a convenient way to hide stuff too. What are we supposed to do? We can't see it, we don't know what it is... and that's that.


I know stuff like the Lesley Ann Downey recording (if you don't know what it is, you are probably lucky). That's withheld for decent recent reasons I believe.
Some stuff on 9/11 and July 7 etc, the same... it's bloody annoying though.

[Roch]

Then it's not truth.  It is not an actual truth of the situation. To pretend so is folly. And to place trust in authority to withhold truth, is simply running the risk of tacit acceptance of license to commit distortion of the truth.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Then it's not truth.  It is not an actual truth of the situation. To pretend so is folly. And to place trust in authority to withhold truth, is simply running the risk of tacit acceptance of license to commit distortion of the truth.

Who said it WAS truth?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

We place ALL our faith in the law

What's that got to do with truth?

A good barrister vs a lousy one, and then truth that the judge and jury will vote the right way?

Absolutely mad if you think that's any guarantee... but it's all we have.



We don't know all the details of the James Bulger case - but we have to trust the judge and jury did all they could. Bringing in 60 million extra jury will give a better verdict? Don't think so

[Roch]

Then it's not truth.  It is not an actual truth of the situation. To pretend so is folly. And to place trust in authority to withhold truth, is simply running the risk of tacit acceptance of license to commit distortion of the truth.

Who said it WAS truth?

Who said WHAT was truth?