submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[Caroline]

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.

So we don't actually 'know' that he did say it? There are lots and lots of things here that we 'thought; we knew which have turned out to be nothing more than complete myth. Unless it's documented then we don't know whether or not it was actually said.

[guest154]

So we don't actually 'know' that he did say it? There are lots and lots of things here that we 'thought; we knew which have turned out to be nothing more than complete myth. Unless it's documented then we don't know whether or not it was actually said.

I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.

[Caroline]

I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.

I think that's where it belongs.

[Mr. Gee]

So we don't actually 'know' that he did say it? There are lots and lots of things here that we 'thought; we knew which have turned out to be nothing more than complete myth. Unless it's documented then we don't know whether or not it was actually said.

So what you are saying in effect that just because Mugford's testimony was documented then it must be true?
I thought I had read it on the forum and I believe it was documented?

[Caroline]

So what you are saying in effect that just because Mugford's testimony was documented then it must be true?
I thought I had read it on the forum and I believe it was documented?

Errrr where did I say that? You are completely missing my point - whether Mugford is telling the truth or not, people can quote her and it can be checked by referring to her statements. You comment on Boutflour can be checked where? You know yourself that people have said things here and it has been quoted so often that it's taken as fact. I like to check what was 'actually' said (be it the truth or not) not what someone 'might' have said.

[Adam]

I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.

The 'I've got something up my sleeve' quote is also in my filing cabinet. Under 'M' for 'Mysterious'.

[John]

Hi
I have done this in the past, and will again.
here is the link
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2015/02/essex-police-challenge-comes-to-witham/
Nick Alston has stated he will not support a request for Essex Police to show that they have not framed JB.
All would take is the release of the original reports from the team surrounding the farm house.
I believe its a good idea to have a long documented history of giving Essex Police the opportunity to come clean.
As you all know I have been in contact with  officers who were inside the farmhouse and have been threatened by Essex Police for doing this.
This was done to try and keep what happened a secret,this is one of the most darkest acts in UK policeing.
Essex Police have Framed Jeremy Bamber.

No, he managed that all on his own. 

[David1819]

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.

I already have pointed this out. What you have said about Essex police in regards to the destruction of the evidence is totally your speculation and guesswork.

1. Essex police and the Metropolitan police don't reveal such information to outsiders.
2. There has never been a public inquest or inquiry into why the evidence was destroyed
3. The Essex or Metropolitan police have not randomly got in contact with you to spill the beans

Therefore the only alternative is that you would have to have been high up in the police to have been informed of the information you have claimed. But you never have been in such position in the police force.

Therefore its fair to conclude what you have claimed is nothing but speculation and guesses that you have portrayed as factual events.

I rest my case.

I look forward to your essay 

[scipio_usmc]

I already have pointed this out. What you have said about Essex police in regards to the destruction of the evidence is totally your speculation and guesswork.

1. Essex police and the Metropolitan police don't reveal such information to outsiders.
2. There has never been a public inquest or inquiry into why the evidence was destroyed
3. The Essex or Metropolitan police have not randomly got in contact with you to spill the beans

Therefore the only alternative is that you would have to have been high up in the police to have been informed of the information you have claimed. But you never have been in such position in the police force.

Therefore its fair to conclude what you have claimed is nothing but speculation and guesses that you have portrayed as factual events.

I rest my case.

I look forward to your essay 

Whiddon's statement posted on this site explains how the process went about.  It was posted by Jeremy supporters who were given access to it by Jeremy and the defense.  So your points have no validity at all.  You want to pretend the document isn't here and ignore the ramifications because you have egg on your face as a result of Jeremy's supporters having it and being able to post it.

Far from speculating I was using evidence posted by Jeremy supporters and you want to ignore that evidence so you can baselessly attack me.  You are just making yourself look foolish.

My points were all logical including that the only way to even begin to hope to suggest police destroyed evidence to keep it from being tested to prove Jeremy's innocence would require the person making the claim to identify HOW testing of a particular item destroyed using some new science could establish his innocence.  No one is able to do that because there is no new testing of anything that could accomplish such.  The only way to prove me wrong is to identify a test using new science of an item destroyed that could establish his innocence.  I dare you to try proving me wrong.

[Jan]

another document

[Jan]

I would ask them why photos and negatives missing? Used for lectures? Really?

[David1819]

Whiddon's statement posted on this site explains how the process went about.  It was posted by Jeremy supporters who were given access to it by Jeremy and the defense.  So your points have no validity at all.  You want to pretend the document isn't here and ignore the ramifications because you have egg on your face as a result of Jeremy's supporters having it and being able to post it.

Far from speculating I was using evidence posted by Jeremy supporters and you want to ignore that evidence so you can baselessly attack me.  You are just making yourself look foolish.

My points were all logical including that the only way to even begin to hope to suggest police destroyed evidence to keep it from being tested to prove Jeremy's innocence would require the person making the claim to identify HOW testing of a particular item destroyed using some new science could establish his innocence.  No one is able to do that because there is no new testing of anything that could accomplish such.  The only way to prove me wrong is to identify a test using new science of an item destroyed that could establish his innocence. I dare you to try proving me wrong.

Whiddon's statement doesn't prove anything about the situation in 1996. More to the point highlighted above how can I prove to you your wrong? Your head is too far up your backside to ever see its a possibility. And what makes an attempt so daring? all you will do is reply with a huge essay to try and change the subject or make up more reasons why you are correct.

You have been proved mistaken and contradictory many times by myself and others. its not important what information you ignore or admit to wrongdoings  what's important is that other people can see that your information is more or less a fraud for lack of a better word

[scipio_usmc]

Whiddon's statement doesn't prove anything about the situation in 1996. More to the point highlighted above how can I prove to you your wrong? Your head is too far up your backside to ever see its a possibility. And what makes an attempt so daring? all you will do is reply with a huge essay to try and change the subject or make up more reasons why you are correct.

You have been proved mistaken and contradictory many times by myself and others. its not important what information you ignore or admit to wrongdoings  what's important is that other people can see that your information is more or less a fraud for lack of a better word

In your imagination you have proved me wrong.  Anytime you are challenged to back up your assertions with evidence you are unable to do so.  You can't identify what i was proved wrong about let alone demonstrate it.

Whiddon's statement explained the process and answers the questions regarding the instructions he was given of what should be gotten rid of either by giving it back to the rightful owner or destroying it.    He was told that they would not retain items that the lawyers at trial had found no value for.  No use of such items had been found prior to, during or after the trial and it was felt they never would have any value.

The CCRC ended up erroneously thinking DNA tests would serve some function and thus wanted the blood samples but that had been destroyed.  No one has come up with an well supported argument that anything that was destroyed could have helped establish Jeremy's innocence. No one has been able to articulate a way for anything destroyed to have held information that could have exonerated him.  Unless someone can articulate such there is no significance in the destruction of such evidence.



 

[lookout]

another document

I wonder if there was ever an answer from Special Branch ? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Jan]

How do you know what present day testing would have revealed if there was no opportunity to carry out those tests . And of course it is significant as it was carried out against the guidelines that EP had themselves drawn up . And why were special branch involved?