The Guildford Four and Jeremy Bamber

[nugnug]

well theres plenty to choose from.

[scipio_usmc]

Quote: Quashing of the Guildford verdict
In 1989, a detective looking at the case found typed notes from Patrick Armstrong's police interviews, which had been heavily edited. Deletions and additions had been made, and the notes had been rearranged. These notes, and their amendments, were consistent with hand-written and typed notes presented at the trial, which suggested that the hand-written notes were made after the interviews had been conducted. This implied that the police had manipulated the notes to fit with the case they wanted to present. unquote.


What case does that remind you of ?

Not this one. 

[JackiePreece]

Not this one.

So nothing was crossed out or altered in this case?
No bodies were moved when a training exercise took place?

[nugnug]

well we dont know they wont let us see.

[scipio_usmc]

So nothing was crossed out or altered in this case?
No bodies were moved when a training exercise took place?

A defendant's statement was altered in the Guildford case.  The defendant's statements were not altered her nor is there evidence of any other statements altered. 

The training exercise claim is just plain dumb and shows yet again you know nothing about the facts of this case only myths.   

[JackiePreece]

Skip contrary to your "opinion" the evidence for the Guildford 4 was "sat on" or rather "deliberately suppressed" as the officer concerned did actually lie in court about his "altered" statement for 16 years before it was investigated by someone researching the case.
Therefore as the police refuse to reveal those files that are currently suppressed by the police under PI we must assume that there is further evidence that may contradict that evidence that was heard in court. Plus the fact that although you insist that there was nothing in the evidence that was destroyed in the 90's that would help Bamber, there is absolutely no way that you can know what evidence could or could not help Bamber.
Therefore we are entitled to hold the police's refusal to release the evidence currently held under PI under suspicion, for their very refusal is an indication of guilt on their part.

[scipio_usmc]

Skip contrary to your "opinion" the evidence for the Guildford 4 was "sat on" or rather "deliberately suppressed" as the officer concerned did actually lie in court about his "altered" statement for 16 years before it was investigated by someone researching the case.
Therefore as the police refuse to reveal those files that are currently suppressed by the police under PI we must assume that there is further evidence that may contradict that evidence that was heard in court. Plus the fact that although you insist that there was nothing in the evidence that was destroyed in the 90's that would help Bamber, there is absolutely no way that you can know what evidence could or could not help Bamber.
Therefore we are entitled to hold the police's refusal to release the evidence currently held under PI under suspicion, for their very refusal is an indication of guilt on their part.

It is easy to tell none of the evidence destroyed could have helped Bamber.  There are no indications of Sheila being wounded beyond the gunshots so obviously she would nto have gotten her blood on the victim clothing that was destoryed EVEN if she had been the killer.  Nor would there be any hope of finding GSR on her gown they already tested it thoroughly and the only new testing permitted is by new methods not available at the time of the murders so only DNA tests.  Non-blood DNA from Jeremy and SHeial could be potentially found on anything as a result of contamination such means nothing as to who the killer is.  The only DNA test that could actually matter in this case would have been tests of the blood removed from the moderators that had been determined to be Sheila's but the tests done destroy DNA so they coudd not have tested that years later anyway even if the lab retained such.

The defense was unable to explain any other DNA test that could be of value and that the inability to do prejudiced the defense because there was no DNA testing they could have done to exonerate him.  The only thing the defense could think of to test for DNA to try to exonerate Jeremy was a DNA test of the moderator but even that was invalid because the Appeal Court explained:

1) there was no way to establish such was blood based DNA which is what matters

2) even if blood based DNA of others had been found that doesn't establish that the blood previously removed and tested wasn't Sheila's.  All that would prove is that other blood could have been there in addition to Sheila's not that Sheila's wasn't there and already removed. 

in the meantime blood of any victim being found in the moderator means it was attached prior to the murders, used and then removed and put away after the murders.  Why would Sheial go get it from the closet, and then put it back away?  The fact it was used at all shows Jeremy is the killer.

What could have been altered from Jeremy's statements to change facts he claimed in order to try to convict him?   There was no need to alter anything.  Jeremy testified and gave his own account of things which was the same lousy account in his statements.

It is astonishing that someone who supposedly was so involved in trying to help Jeremy is so amazingly ignorant of the basic facts of this case.  you basically mad eup your mind he is innocent from a position of ignorance and just spout worthless myths to try to sugges the is innocent.  To be an effective advocate you have to be acutely aware of all the relevant facts and evidence.  Your ignorance explains 2 things it seems:

1) why you think he is innocent (because you don't know why he was even convicted and just assume the evidence was insufficient)

2) why you are so ineffective at helping him.
 

   

[JackiePreece]

Why are you talking about DNA and all this rubbish? My answer to you was about destruction of evidence and the result of that destruction of evidence means that:
(1) Further testing of those items that you have mentioned, whatever they may be is now impossible, so we may never be able to establish  whether they would either help or hinder Jeremy. What you say is only assumption on your part and in effect your opinion alone.
(2) My question on the thread in particular is about the destruction of evidence in the 90's. Which possibly contained various items plus statements. The fact that these were destroyed puts any hope for jeremy from those items finally out of reach.
So any view that you may have concerning those things. Plus those statements, photographs and other information that may be held under pii by the police. You have no idea what is held under PI so what you say about them is pure speculation on your part.
Because of Essex police' continual refusal to release those things held under PI, plus the almost miraculous destruction of those pieces of evidence in the 90's on the EXACT day and on the 11th hour I might add that they were supposed to be destroyed looks strangely very suspicious to those with any common sense left in their weak minds.

[scipio_usmc]

Why are you talking about DNA and all this rubbish? My answer to you was about destruction of evidence and the result of that destruction of evidence means that:
(1) Further testing of those items that you have mentioned, whatever they may be is now impossible, so we may never be able to establish  whether they would either help or hinder Jeremy. What you say is only assumption on your part and in effect your opinion alone.
(2) My question on the thread in particular is about the destruction of evidence in the 90's. Which possibly contained various items plus statements. The fact that these were destroyed puts any hope for jeremy from those items finally out of reach.
So any view that you may have concerning those things. Plus those statements, photographs and other information that may be held under pii by the police. You have no idea what is held under PI so what you say about them is pure speculation on your part.
Because of Essex police' continual refusal to release those things held under PI, plus the almost miraculous destruction of those pieces of evidence in the 90's on the EXACT day and on the 11th hour I might add that they were supposed to be destroyed looks strangely very suspicious to those with any common sense left in their weak minds.

Statements are not stored with physical evidence.  The custodians are different for files and physical evidence.  The evidence complained about being lost was physical evidence.  The only testing that could be done on evidence is new testing not available at the time of trial.  That means DNA.  That is why I am talking about DNA. 

[JackiePreece]

Statements are not stored with physical evidence.  The custodians are different for files and physical evidence.  The evidence complained about being lost was physical evidence.  The only testing that could be done on evidence is new testing not available at the time of trial.  That means DNA.  That is why I am talking about DNA.

Skip first of all we are talking about the Guildford four and the fact that evidence was witheld from the public for around 16 years, and it was witheld as the police officer that testified lied under oath in court that his testimony was true. Yet it was discovered remember many years after that he lied because the real statement was found that completely contradicted what that officer said in court. I have never mentioned DNA, yet you have introduced the subject no doubt to throw confusion into the argument?
 
However in reference to the evidence concerning the Bamber evidence that was destroyed on the very day that they were allowed to do so. That alone should arouse suspicion by the very people who shout the loudest about the truth. I also find it surprising that the very people who claim to have looked at all the evidence before they came to the conclusion that Bamber was guilty insist on believing the police when they tell us that the evidence that they destroyed was only blood samples and nightdresses and other pieces of clothing. In spite of reading about so many miscarriages of justices where the police have been found guilty of manipulating evidence.