what reason did the police give for destroying the evedence in this case.
The ten years was up, they didn't know the appeal was still open and they needed to make room for new evidence. We don't have more information about the circumstances and testing the claims because Jeremy's lawyers decided not to bother to have the CCRC/Appeal Court investigate. The APpeal COurt summarized it as follows:
"The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits."
Since some Jeremy zealots are always either exaggerating, in error or outright lying I want to see what evidence was destroyed beyond blood samples. They got around the blood sample problem and yet it is still being alleged that other evidence was destroyed that could have cleared him. I wonder what this supposed evidence is. It seems supporters don't have any clue what evidence was destroyed let alone that there is evidence that could have cleared him but it was destoryed and are just making up a claim that evidence that could have cleared him existed and was destroyed.
According to certain posters here some claims were made by unspecified Jeremy critics that Jeremy did not have an investigation into the circumstances of the destruction because he was happy evidence that could have been used against him was destroyed. Zealots on the other side maintain evidence that could have cleared him was destroyed. Neither is true.
If there had been evidence destroyed that could have cleared him then the defense would have wanted a full investigation. INSTEAD the defense was simply arguing the destruction taints the police in a general sense and thus calls the case into question on that basis. The Appeal Court made clear that the circumstances did not need to be investigated because both sides agreed that the Court should simply accept lesser DNA matches to prove June and Nevill's blood to be present and this would mitigate the destruction of their blood samples. Had The Court investigated and found any wrongdoing by those currently in charge of the exhibits that woudl not have tainted the case as a whole. That is why the defense said then don't bother.
The Court made clear that if it did find wrongdoing by someone who had control over the evidence in 1996, that such could not be used to say that means different police who conducted the investigation years earlier did anything wrong. Let's be honest that is what many Jeremy zealots try to claim- that there was wrongdoing in 1996 and that means there likely was wrongdoing by those who handled the case otiginally and the evidence is therefore not reliable. . The Court said that won't fly so the defense said then don't bother and took what it could get which was the presumption that blood similar to the blood of relatives of the victims would suffice and be treated as a match to victim blood.
IF there had been evidence destroyed that could have been used to acquit him then they would have said yes find out the circumstances of the destruction because we hope you will find evidence that lets us argue that they intentionally destroyed evidence that they knew would set him free. So the defense let the cat out of the bag that the evidence destroyed didn't do that. They claimed such with respect to the blood samples but the Court mitigated that by accepting lesser DNA matches to prove June and Nevill's blood to be present. There was nothing else destroyed that let the defense even try such an argument so they didn't care about the circumstances being investigated.
That indicates that at that time the defense was not worried about getting fodder to use for propaganda to use publicly to try to fool people but rather concerned simply with the legal value of evidence. It seems that after that point is when the propaganda machine took over.
