submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[lookout]

You can bet your life it will,David.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes, that is what I am getting at: the blood evidence - which I find very significant, since this was exactly around the time forensic DNA testing was gaining ground freeing loads of innocent people from incarceration. Spared some the death penalty even.

I know you will write a novel now about how it has no significance, but it will not change that I find it noticable they chose to destroy all blood evidence at that exact time.

According to the above document, Whiddon was given carte blanche to decide what to keep, return and what to destroy.  He fel he wasn't familiar enough with the case to make informed decisions so had someone else decide and just followed orders.

There was no reason to need the samples.  There were no blood stains that they would need to have DNA tested so no need for the blood samples to use to rule out the victims hence no need for any victim blood.  The only DNA tests they ended up doing were worthless as they had no ability to establish a thing.  If they had some blood stains from the killer and they feared the stains would prove Sheila was the killer and thus disposed of them that would be one thing.  But that is not the case and there objectively was no use for the blood samples. 

DNA helps exonerate in cases where the DNA of the killer was left behind or someone other than the defendant was found to have DNA of the victims on them.   There was no way to predict any value of any DNA tests given the evidence in this case and the DNA tests ultimate done were indeed pointless.

Interestingly they destroyed Sheila's diaries to keep them from being sold.  The Estate it appears would have liked ot try to make money off them that is pretty scummy if the relatives approved of such.

[scipio_usmc]

This'll be worth submitting,with a large question mark,.WHY ?

Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits.  No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.

[lookout]

Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits.  No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.

Then why had they already been kept for 10 years ? There was an order NOT to destroy items,but EP went ahead and did so anyway.
I know----------because there HAD been doubts about Jeremy's conviction among some officers.

[David1819]

Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits.  No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.

How can you possibly know this?

[Caroline]

Then why had they already been kept for 10 years ? There was an order NOT to destroy items,but EP went ahead and did so anyway.
I know----------because there HAD been doubts about Jeremy's conviction among some officers.

How do you know?

[lookout]

How do you know?

Nudge nudge,wink wink. I'm saying no more.

[Caroline]

Nudge nudge,wink wink. I'm saying no more.

The I'll take it that you don't know - you're just assuming or you heard it somewhere.

[lookout]

The I'll take it that you don't know - you're just assuming or you heard it somewhere.

No,I'm not assuming anything. It'll come to light soon enough I imagine.

[Caroline]

No,I'm not assuming anything. It'll come to light soon enough I imagine.

I doubt it but we'll see.

[scipio_usmc]

Then why had they already been kept for 10 years ? There was an order NOT to destroy items,but EP went ahead and did so anyway.
I know----------because there HAD been doubts about Jeremy's conviction among some officers.

That is false that there was an order not to destroy things.  The supposed court order to not destroy anything didn't exist.  It was standard police policy to not destroy things while an appeal was ongoing.  he police who did it had no idea there was an ongoing appeal still though. The supposed ongoing appeal simply consisted of the Home Office conferring with the defense periodically.  There were no proceedings the police were made aware of. 

Nothing destroyed could have been used to try to free Jeremy. The only thing destroyed that the defense complained about was the blood samples that is the only thing they found some use for and that was only for the worthless DNA tests.  The attachments to the above document were not uploaded ot this site but were given to the defense attorneys and they found nothing to argue was destroyed which could have freed Jeremy.

There was nothing at all in 1996 that was brought up to police that suggested Jeremy's innocence and they thus decided to destroy such evidence.  The defense failed to come up with anything to establish Jeremy's innocence which is why the 2002 appeal failed.

[scipio_usmc]

How can you possibly know this?

That is what they asserted in the document that discusses the destruction and there is no reason to doubt it.  No one has been able to articulate something destroyed that had the potential to exonerate Jeremy.  There was no blood from the killer, nothing saved from under the fingernails of the victims that could be DNA from the killer, no other evidence which would be likely to contain the DNA of the killer, no blood that was removed in 1985/86 had been preserved...that kind of evidence is the only evidence that could potentially have established there was a different killer.

[Jan]

According to the above document, Whiddon was given carte blanche to decide what to keep, return and what to destroy.  He fel he wasn't familiar enough with the case to make informed decisions so had someone else decide and just followed orders.

There was no reason to need the samples.  There were no blood stains that they would need to have DNA tested so no need for the blood samples to use to rule out the victims hence no need for any victim blood.  The only DNA tests they ended up doing were worthless as they had no ability to establish a thing.  If they had some blood stains from the killer and they feared the stains would prove Sheila was the killer and thus disposed of them that would be one thing.  But that is not the case and there objectively was no use for the blood samples. 

DNA helps exonerate in cases where the DNA of the killer was left behind or someone other than the defent wound to have DNA of the victims on them.   There was no way to predict any value of any DNA tests given the evidence in this case and the DNA tests ultimate done were indeed pointless.

Interestingly they destroyed Sheila's diaries to keep them from being sold.  The Estate it appears would ave likedut  ooot try to make money off them that is pretty scummy if the relatives approved of such.
[/quyou ote]ld


If you remember I showed you a document about blood results from Sheilas nightie which you admitted you did not understand - and these items were destroyed at a time when DNA testing was advancing and being used more and more in court cases . So I would say police guidelines exist for a reason - and they know that it was a very HIGH profile case so they had NO excuse for destroying items that could have held evidence

[scipio_usmc]

If you remember I showed you a document about blood results from Sheilas nightie which you admitted you did not understand - and these items were destroyed at a time when DNA testing was advancing and being used more and more in court cases . So I would say police guidelines exist for a reason - and they know that it was a very HIGH profile case so they had NO excuse for destroying items that could have held evidence

The only blood on Sheila's nightgown was the blood that leaked down from her neck and the blood from her wrist.  There was no other blood to analyze. There was nothing that could have been spatter from any other victim.  That being the case what testing could have been done to the gown to try to exonerate Jeremy?  In the meantime spatter indicates being present when someone else is shot/beaten, it doesn't prove the person was the one doing the beating/shooting.  So if there had been spatter it would be evidence that she was nearby when such person was beaten or shot and other things have to be looked at to assess whether she was the perp or just a victim who was present.

 

[Jan]

The only blood on Sheila's nightgown was the blood that leaked down from her neck and the blood from her wrist.  There was no other blood to analyze. There was nothing that could have been spatter from any other victim.  That being the case what testing could have been done to the gown to try to exonerate Jeremy?  In the meantime spatter indicates being present when someone else is shot/beaten, it doesn't prove the person was the one doing the beating/shooting.  So if there had been spatter it would be evidence that she was nearby when such person was beaten or shot and other things have to be looked at to assess whether she was the perp or just a victim who was present.

 

so in the past you have said the fact there was no other victims blood on her was proof she was innocent . Now you are saying if for example a very small amount of blood was on her from say the twins - then it would not implicate her at all ? That's convenient.