involvement of special branch.

[nugnug]

i can think of a reason now but its a bit more mundane than the explantions that have ben offered.

[Jane]

i can think of a reason now but its a bit more mundane than the explantions that have ben offered.

SO!!!! Doesn't mean it isn't valid. Let's hear it

[nugnug]

ok what if certain special branch officers misused there power as special branch officers to cover up embarrassing things they had done before there were special branch officers

[scipio_usmc]

ok what if certain special branch officers misused there power as special branch officers to cover up embarrassing things they had done before there were special branch officers

Blood samples of victims were destroyed though.  How would blood samples being destoryed hide wrongdoing of Woodcock (the only known person involved in the original case to become SB)?   Woodcock's invovlement was limited to the initial day where he just took part in the raid and then stayed to make sure weapons were empty.     

[Jane]

ok what if certain special branch officers misused there power as special branch officers to cover up embarrassing things they had done before there were special branch officers

Nugs, I would have thought that background checks would have been carried out before they were accepted into SB but even if one or two had slipped through the net, it doesn't explain SB's involvement, part of which was that they were supposed to have been around/in the area/keeping watch!!!!! BEFORE anything happened.

[Patti]

ive got somthing here.

http://t.co/KcFcVVX7XV

It appears that Soames of special branch gave the authority to destroy specific exhibits in 1996. 

[lookout]

 Why were MI5 present in Tolleshunt D'Arcy a week before the murders,then a week after the murders. ?

[Jane]

Why were MI5 present in Tolleshunt D'Arcy a week before the murders,then a week after the murders. ?

Perhaps they were sailing their corporate yacht out of Tollesbury.

[lookout]

Perhaps they were sailing their corporate yacht out of Tollesbury.

They were up to something that's for sure. I shall write a reminder to myself  to ask bro.when he calls next week.

[Jane]

They were up to something that's for sure. I shall write a reminder to myself  to ask bro.when he calls next week.

Is there actual proof of them being there?

[lookout]

Is there actual proof of them being there?

From someone who knew back in 2010.

[nugnug]

well there wouldn't be would there. so it could never be proved ethere way.

with a case thats allready complicated i think its best not to make it worse by bringing mi5 into it.

i mean at least with special branch things can be proved or disproved.

[scipio_usmc]

It appears that Soames of special branch gave the authority to destroy specific exhibits in 1996. 

Which could mean:

1) Special Branch is in charge of old evidence and has to sign off before any destruction can take place and thus peopel have to request permission from them

2) Soames requested the blood samples be destroyed for some reason such as to make room for Special Branch evidence.

It is unclear whether that means Soames just signed off or requested it be destroyed.

The letter asks for information that would explain which is the case and why but those documents have not been posted to leave a vaccuum in which unsupported conspiracy claims can be alleged and the actual evidence to refute those claims kept secret.

[Jane]

From someone who knew back in 2010.

I'm sure you'll forgive my cynicism, but since joining this forum there have been innumerable claims made by those who genuinely believe that there are equally innumerable people out there who KNOW Jeremy is innocent. I can't believe that there are that many people who are happy to live with being responsible for keeping an innocent man in prison when an anonymous phonecall to the media, revealing just enough to spike national interest, could reverse that situation.

[Patti]

Which could mean:

1) Special Branch is in charge of old evidence and has to sign off before any destruction can take place and thus peopel have to request permission from them

2) Soames requested the blood samples be destroyed for some reason such as to make room for Special Branch evidence.

It is unclear whether that means Soames just signed off or requested it be destroyed.

The letter asks for information that would explain which is the case and why but those documents have not been posted to leave a vaccuum in which unsupported conspiracy claims can be alleged and the actual evidence to refute those claims kept secret.

Which could mean: is not set in stone you either know or you don't know and I don't mean you I mean whoever.....

One must still ask the question as why items were destroyed when Jeremy was still claiming his innocence and why blood samples were destroyed just about the same time as new science evolved such as DNA profiling.  It would be rude not to ask those questions, like it would be rude to refuse a glass of wine....