Destruction of Evidence in 1996

[mb1]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

[Dr Pal]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why no reply to this interesting question??

[mb1]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why no reply to this interesting question??

It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.

[Roch]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why no reply to this interesting question??

It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.

Interesting.  There was a post on a thread recently (think Mike put it on) stating that DNA found on a silencer could not have been from SC.  But not sure whether that was linked to the blood found on the silencer or a non blood source of DNA found.  It was relating to one of the appeals.  Was JB definitley notified before the destruction?  Also, In a situation like this, would any other family members have a say in whether this blood evidence was destroyed or not? Forgive my lack of legal knowledge.

[mb1]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why no reply to this interesting question??

It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.

Interesting.  There was a post on a thread recently (think Mike put it on) stating that DNA found on a silencer could not have been from SC.  But not sure whether that was linked to the blood found on the silencer or a non blood source of DNA found.  It was relating to one of the appeals.  Was JB definitley notified before the destruction?  Also, In a situation like this, would any other family members have a say in whether this blood evidence was destroyed or not? Forgive my lack of legal knowledge.

RDP - perhaps Mike is waiting for JB to confirm the when and what.

Were I JB, I would have seized the opportunity to discredit the EP.
Have posted the 2002 Appeal summary re moderator blood on the 'backspatter' thread.

I genuinely don't know if the family would/should have been told. Probably not, as the samples weren't theirs, they weren't appellants and hadn't given notice of any civil case. But that's an educated guess.
Think people don't understand how difficult it can be for the families of victims. They are often neglected once the initial headlines dwindle, unless they are pushy.

[Roch]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why no reply to this interesting question??

It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.

Interesting.  There was a post on a thread recently (think Mike put it on) stating that DNA found on a silencer could not have been from SC.  But not sure whether that was linked to the blood found on the silencer or a non blood source of DNA found.  It was relating to one of the appeals.  Was JB definitley notified before the destruction?  Also, In a situation like this, would any other family members have a say in whether this blood evidence was destroyed or not? Forgive my lack of legal knowledge.

RDP - perhaps Mike is waiting for JB to confirm the when and what.

Were I JB, I would have seized the opportunity to discredit the EP.
Have posted the 2002 Appeal summary re moderator blood on the 'backspatter' thread.

I genuinely don't know if the family would/should have been told. Probably not, as the samples weren't theirs, they weren't appellants and hadn't given notice of any civil case. But that's an educated guess.
Think people don't understand how difficult it can be for the families of victims. They are often neglected once the initial headlines dwindle, unless they are pushy.

'Backspatter'... such a horrible term isn't it? You'd think that there'd be a more sanitised term but then maybe graphic terms are needed to remind people of such horror. I was thinking that the family, if asked, would be pushing for samples to be kept.  DNA science has certainly come a long way since that baker got done in the 80's. Remember that? Think it was in Leicestershire. It was an early DNA breakthrough case were they tested males from the  the surrounding villages. Though it was semen not blood related, as it had been sexual killings.

[mb1]

Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.

Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why no reply to this interesting question??

It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.

Interesting.  There was a post on a thread recently (think Mike put it on) stating that DNA found on a silencer could not have been from SC.  But not sure whether that was linked to the blood found on the silencer or a non blood source of DNA found.  It was relating to one of the appeals.  Was JB definitley notified before the destruction?  Also, In a situation like this, would any other family members have a say in whether this blood evidence was destroyed or not? Forgive my lack of legal knowledge.

RDP - perhaps Mike is waiting for JB to confirm the when and what.

Were I JB, I would have seized the opportunity to discredit the EP.
Have posted the 2002 Appeal summary re moderator blood on the 'backspatter' thread.

I genuinely don't know if the family would/should have been told. Probably not, as the samples weren't theirs, they weren't appellants and hadn't given notice of any civil case. But that's an educated guess.
Think people don't understand how difficult it can be for the families of victims. They are often neglected once the initial headlines dwindle, unless they are pushy.

'Backspatter'... such a horrible term isn't it? You'd think that there'd be a more sanitised term but then maybe graphic terms are needed to remind people of such horror. I was thinking that the family, if asked, would be pushing for samples to be kept.  DNA science has certainly come a long way since that baker got done in the 80's. Remember that? Think it was in Leicestershire. It was an early DNA breakthrough case were they tested males from the  the surrounding villages. Though it was semen not blood related, as it had been sexual killings.

Now you've mentioned it, yes backspatter is a horrid word. Now, whenever I see that word, I shall think of bits of a person - but that's a good thing.  Guess we all lose sight of the fact that we're talking about real people. 

The first accepted case in English law related to immigration (86 off the top of my head), but it paved the way for criminal use. Americans picked up the baton and ran with it much faster, but they have so many more cases. (And made the bulk of early mistakes!)

Isn't it hard to imagine what investigation was like pre DNA? And they can do blood layering now as well.
These days they would be at WHF for a month!