About PII and the COLP enquiry

[Reader]

Some of you have probably read this 23-page document already. It makes interesting reading.

edit: Oops, the last character in the link was incorrect. This document is the one I intended.

[scipio_usmc]

Some of you have probably read this 23-page document already. It makes interesting reading.

What is so interesting?  It makes a bunch of unsupported claims merely.

[nugnug]

it does thankyou reader.

[guest154]

I see only two pages - written by an amature? Not sure why I can't see the other 21 pages?

[scipio_usmc]

I see only two pages - written by an amature? Not sure why I can't see the other 21 pages?

I also only see 2 and it clearly ends there is no more to it.

Maybe he posted the wrong link.  If it is 23 pages then it has to be the wrong link.

[No-Bits]

The other 21 pages have been withheld under pii.   :D

[guest154]

The other 21 pages have been withheld under pii.   :D

 

[Caroline]

The other 21 pages have been withheld under pii.   :D

 

[Reader]

I gave the wrong link, but I've added the right one to the initial post.

[Caroline]

Thanks Reader, but it doesn't state who wrote it and immediately after a quick glance I can see mistakes. Do you know where it's from or who wrote it?

[Reader]

No, I've no idea at present. What mistakes did you notice?

[scipio_usmc]

Some of you have probably read this 23-page document already. It makes interesting reading.

edit: Oops, the last character in the link was incorrect. This document is the one I intended.

I still don't find it very interesting because all it does is make allegations that are unsupported (some of which we know to be false like the ones about multiple moderators) and then requests a new investigation.

I especially have to ;laugh at this claim:

"However COLP was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to edit any evidence that came under their scrutiny which would incriminate police officers of Essex Police as to a finding that their initial investigation was tainted. Jeremy Bamber was not aware of this until recently."

You especially would want to post evidence in support of such a claim.

When people post evidence to support allegaitons that is when things get interesting.

 
 

[Mr. Gee]

I still don't find it very interesting because all it does is make allegations that are unsupported (some of which we know to be false like the ones about multiple moderators) and then requests a new investigation.

I especially have to ;laugh at this claim:

"However COLP was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to edit any evidence that came under their scrutiny which would incriminate police officers of Essex Police as to a finding that their initial investigation was tainted. Jeremy Bamber was not aware of this until recently."

You especially would want to post evidence in support of such a claim.

When people post evidence to support allegaitons that is when things get interesting.

 

Well actually I believe RWB complained because he had to hand his silemcer into the police for examination. So in a way there were multiple silencers. because I believe they wanted to examine Pargeter's silencer as well?

[guest154]

I still don't find it very interesting because all it does is make allegations that are unsupported (some of which we know to be false like the ones about multiple moderators) and then requests a new investigation.

I especially have to ;laugh at this claim:

"However COLP was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to edit any evidence that came under their scrutiny which would incriminate police officers of Essex Police as to a finding that their initial investigation was tainted. Jeremy Bamber was not aware of this until recently."

You especially would want to post evidence in support of such a claim.

When people post evidence to support allegaitons that is when things get interesting.

 

It sounds good written down, I guess that was the intention. I don't think whoever put this together believes it will be taken too seriously by the courts/CCRC/police/government/IPCC or whoever else they send it to but it does seem to sound almost like propaganda material that supporters will see and think something is happening.
I found the final point amusing.

"A thorough, comprehensive and impartial investigation is demanded to provide ultimate accountability for the serious and substantive allegations submitted in this document."

Substantive?? 

[scipio_usmc]

No, I've no idea at present. What mistakes did you notice?

"While a sound moderator was being forensically tested, the other was being photographed at White House Farm, one was SBJ/1 the other DRB/1. It is, of course impossible for the sound moderator in issue to be in two places at once. Photographs img – 3642. CR2 through to img 3649. CR2, picture the rifle and sound moderator in the gun cupboard on the 20th September 1985. While photographs img – 3650. CR2 through to img 3653. CR2, shows the rifle with a different sound moderator attached in the gun cupboard on the 11th November 1985. Thus the photographs of DRB/1 were taken on 20th September 1985, and the photographs of SBJ/1 were taken on 11th November 1985."

They make the argument that the moderator was being forensically tested the same time as it was being photographed elsewhere and can't be in 2 places at once but then fail to establish with evidence it was being forensically tested on the date the photos were taken.  Instead they discuss dates in 2 different months.  It is quite possible for the gun and moderator to be in one place one month and another place in a different month.  It is possible to be in a different location the same day as well though so long as they are different times and someone transported it from one location to another. 

The moderator didn't sit at the lab it was brought back and forth to the lab and once the blood was removed it didn't need to be tested much, the testing was mainly to the blood.

The argument doesn't seem well thought out.