submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[scipio_usmc]

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.

I cited the lack of victim blood, GSR and lead on her hands in unison.  I stated in the past that spatter indicates being present near someone killed not necessarily doing the killing.  Thus if some spatter had been found it would not alone establish she did anything beyond be present when someone else was beaten or shot.

There was no blood though found on the gown besides the blood she transferred from her wrist and the blood that flowed from her own wounds.  Why would the police need to destroy the gown when there was no blood on it to be concealed?  If spatter had been found then one could speculate (and that is all it would be is speculation without proof) maybe the police destroyed it to prevent a DNA test that would determine whose spatter it had been. But no spatter had been found so there is no way to make such an argument.

If spatter had been found though it would have been cited at trial and the gown would not have fit the criteria for destruction in the first place and had it nonetheless been destroyed that would have created a problem because then the question would be why was it destroyed though it didn't fit the criteria established to sort out what was to be destroyed. So there would be a problem to address even without speculating the destruction was to hide evidence.

[Jan]

but there should have been blood on the back of the nightie surely - was there not blood on the carpet underneath where she was laying?

[Jan]

just for reference

[scipio_usmc]

but there should have been blood on the back of the nightie surely - was there not blood on the carpet underneath where she was laying?

There were small drops of blood on the carpet. Whether any was under her body is unclear.  However there is no requirement that a tiny drop of blood on a carpet will transfer to her upon her being placed over the rug.  It depends on how long a period of time passed for it to dry as well as how much blood was there to be transferred in addition to whether she was actually on the blood not just near it. .  Blood on her back would not be of any use to the inquiry though anyway unless it were spatter in which case it would establish she had her back near a victim at the time someone else beat/shot the victim. That would obviously incriminate Jeremy further as opposed to be exculpatory.

[scipio_usmc]

just for reference

There are 2 lines pertaining to the dress both of which say blood type A was found.  The scientists said they tested blood from 2 locations- the blood on her shoulder and the blood her hand deposited.  The other references on the page are to things other than the dress including what appears to be a key but only someone who filled it out or was trained to fill it out and thus read it would be able to address the other references.

[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.

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.

In order to know this, you would have to have been high up the police service at the time and you weren't. Your just making this stuff up to suit your narrative

[scipio_usmc]

In order to know this, you would have to have been high up the police service at the time and you weren't. Your just making this stuff up to suit your narrative

There is no need to be a cop to understand if there could be any potential use for the evidence all one needs is an understanding of the case.   Indeed Jeremy's lawyers are the ones who would try to figure out some use but failed to find any use for anything except the moderator with the worthless. WHat did the defense cry about being destroyed?  The blood samples they wanted to use for the DNA tests of the moderator.  What else?  They haven't found any way to allege they could have used other evidence to exonerate him.

Anyone who want to allege police destroyed evidence to prevent testing which could have exonerated Jeremy must find some potential way for Jeremy to have been exonerated if a specific piece of evidence wasn't destroyed.  Jeremy's lawyers couldn't figure out a way for any of it to have cleared him so I doubt anyone here who wants to allege it would be able to either.  Of course his lawyers have the advantage of knowing what was destroyed but we don't because the attachments referenced in the various documents have not been uploaded on this site.

But since we know the evidence used to convict Jeremy we can figure out what is necessary to exonerate him.  Exonerating him requires proving the moderator wasn't used. to kill Sheila.  The only way to prove it wasn't used is to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't hers.  The re is no way to do that because none of the blood was saved by the lab or the defense expert. The only other way to prove it wasn't used would be if someone were to confess they planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle. So establishing his innocence can't be accomplished by looking at any of the physical evidence retained in the case but rather hinges upon someone coming forward with credible evidence that tampering of evidence took place.

This is the factual reality of the situation

[David1819]

There is no need to be a cop to understand if there could be any potential use for the evidence all one needs is an understanding of the case.   Indeed Jeremy's lawyers are the ones who would try to figure out some use but failed to find any use for anything except the moderator with the worthless. WHat did the defense cry about being destroyed?  The blood samples they wanted to use for the DNA tests of the moderator.  What else?  They haven't found any way to allege they could have used other evidence to exonerate him.

Anyone who want to allege police destroyed evidence to prevent testing which could have exonerated Jeremy must find some potential way for Jeremy to have been exonerated if a specific piece of evidence wasn't destroyed.  Jeremy's lawyers couldn't figure out a way for any of it to have cleared him so I doubt anyone here who wants to allege it would be able to either.  Of course his lawyers have the advantage of knowing what was destroyed but we don't because the attachments referenced in the various documents have not been uploaded on this site.

But since we know the evidence used to convict Jeremy we can figure out what is necessary to exonerate him.  Exonerating him requires proving the moderator wasn't used. to kill Sheila.  The only way to prove it wasn't used is to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't hers.  The re is no way to do that because none of the blood was saved by the lab or the defense expert. The only other way to prove it wasn't used would be if someone were to confess they planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle. So establishing his innocence can't be accomplished by looking at any of the physical evidence retained in the case but rather hinges upon someone coming forward with credible evidence that tampering of evidence took place.

This is the factual reality of the situation

No your just making stuff up and speculating to attempt to join the dots

[scipio_usmc]

No your just making stuff up and speculating to attempt to join the dots

No making things up is what you do. The process of how the decision was made of what to destroy has been explained.  Whiddon was told to make the decision himself based on what would not be needed.  He wasn't told what to destroy initially he was told to make the decisions himself.  He balked and said he lacked the expertise to know so someone else had to evaluate what would be needed.  If Whiddon's superiors had decided to destroy evidence to deny its use to the defense then the superiors would have decided what needed to be destroyed straight away not have given Whiddon the discretion to decide himself. 

First the crying from you and others was you wanted to know how the decision was made regarding what to destroy, now that the answer is out there you and other Jeremy supporters are MAKING UP that police destroyed the evidence because they knew there were advances in science which would enable to evidence to be used to establish Jeremy's innocence. What basis is there to make the allegation?  None.

I have issued a challenge to Jan and you and anyone else who wants to assert that police intentionally destroyed evidence to prevent it from establishing Jeremy is innocent.  That challenge is to identify something that was destroyed which had the potential to establish Jeremy's innocence and explain how it could have potentially established his innocence.  If you can't even think up a way for some piece of evidence that was destroyed to establish his innocence through new scientific testing unavailable at the time of trial then you have no argument at all.

But you have demonstrated time and again you have no valid arguments to make only parroting of the lies and tlaking points contained on the JB campaign site.

[David1819]

No making things up is what you do. The process of how the decision was made of what to destroy has been explained.  Whiddon was told to make the decision himself based on what would not be needed.  He wasn't told what to destroy initially he was told to make the decisions himself.  He balked and said he lacked the expertise to know so someone else had to evaluate what would be needed.  If Whiddon's superiors had decided to destroy evidence to deny its use to the defense then the superiors would have decided what needed to be destroyed straight away not have given Whiddon the discretion to decide himself. 

First the crying from you and others was you wanted to know how the decision was made regarding what to destroy, now that the answer is out there you and other Jeremy supporters are MAKING UP that police destroyed the evidence because they knew there were advances in science which would enable to evidence to be used to establish Jeremy's innocence. What basis is there to make the allegation?  None.

I have issued a challenge to Jan and you and anyone else who wants to assert that police intentionally destroyed evidence to prevent it from establishing Jeremy is innocent.  That challenge is to identify something that was destroyed which had the potential to establish Jeremy's innocence and explain how it could have potentially established his innocence.  If you can't even think up a way for some piece of evidence that was destroyed to establish his innocence through new scientific testing unavailable at the time of trial then you have no argument at all.

But you have demonstrated time and again you have no valid arguments to make only parroting of the lies and tlaking points contained on the JB campaign site.

Whatever Scippy

I'm not making any claims for or against Jeremy in this argument. I'm just pointing out that your making things up because your claiming things that you cannot possibly know. 

[scipio_usmc]

Whatever Scippy

I'm not making any claims for or against Jeremy in this argument. I'm just pointing out that your making things up because your claiming things that you cannot possibly know. 

Point out what I made up and establish it was just made up. Let's see if you know how to actually present an argument and know how to attempt to prove it.

[Mr. Gee]

The only way to prove it wasn't used is to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't hers.

Wrong as usual. The real point is that the prosecution failed to prove that the silencer WAS used. Unfortunately 10 of the jury voted banking on the prosecution's evidence to be honest and truthful, when in actual fact the silencer was "allegedly" found by the relatives, an interested party as it were they who wanted Jeremy to be convicted. One still wonders what Boutflour meant when he stated that he "had something up his sleeve", that would get Jeremy convicted?

[lookout]

I've wondered that for long enough Mr G. A shifty thing to say if ever there was.
I bet Jeremy never even gave a thought to using a phrase like that,let alone having said it to the rentagob ex.girlfriend, seeing that he was alleged to have said everything else " connected to the murders ".

[Caroline]

Wrong as usual. The real point is that the prosecution failed to prove that the silencer WAS used. Unfortunately 10 of the jury voted banking on the prosecution's evidence to be honest and truthful, when in actual fact the silencer was "allegedly" found by the relatives, an interested party as it were they who wanted Jeremy to be convicted. One still wonders what Boutflour meant when he stated that he "had something up his sleeve", that would get Jeremy convicted?

How do we know he said that? (By the way - welcome back .

[lookout]

Caroline,it's the same as asking how we knew JM said half the things that she did,thinking they were true. However,we now know that she did say some of these things as she didn't care at the time whether they were true or not,although erring on the side of caution when it came to an outright accusation ??
Whatever we hear was to further blacken Jeremy anyway,whether these things were said or not.