submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[Jan]

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

Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .

Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly

[lookout]

Quite a few questions to put to EP in their open question time. Some hope of getting a reply let alone any answers. If not,the answer is to go higher.

[David1819]

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.

If believing that makes you feel better  I'm not going round in circles. just read the counterclaims and arguments against you in the previous discussions. What you think is of secondary importance  what's most important is that everyone else can read this forum and make their own minds up.

[lookout]

Just bringing back this thread as I don't want to lose track of it.
 Bambergate has put a LOT of work into seeking the truth about this case and has investigated where none of us would dream about doing,so I think it only right for the thread not to sink to the bottom of the pile.

[Mr. Gee]

Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .

Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly

I think that is where I saw it as well?

[Caroline]

Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .

Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly

So he actually said something up his sleeve 'to get Jeremy convicted'?

[lookout]

I think that is where I saw it as well?

It did appear in AE's notes. I put my theory to the test about it yesterday,but as usual,it faded into oblivion. I know exactly how Jeremy feels when nobody listens. Head against a brick wall job.

[Mr. Gee]

So he actually said something up his sleeve 'to get Jeremy convicted'?

Why else would he have something up his sleeve? He certainly managed to incriminate him by allegedly finding "the" silencer?

[lookout]

Why else would he have something up his sleeve? He certainly managed to incriminate him by allegedly finding "the" silencer?

It would seem that AE had tried everything else to MAKE EP change their minds but they weren't having any and they certainly didn't like " Taff " for throwing them out of his office after he told AE to stop writing.

[Caroline]

Why else would he have something up his sleeve? He certainly managed to incriminate him by allegedly finding "the" silencer?

So he didn't actually mention 'conviction'? He could have been referring to anything. However, DB couldn't have engineered the silencer evidence on his own. I don't think we can assume anything

You accused me of using supposition yesterday and that's what this is. However, the supposition in this instance is added to a sentence he 'might' have said without knowing what was actually meant. This is how so many things get taken as fact when in fact they started life here in opinion or supposition.

[lookout]

Can anyone explain in such a huge murder case,why there's no forensic evidence ?

[scipio_usmc]

Can anyone explain in such a huge murder case,why there's no forensic evidence ?

There is forensic evidence you just ignore it because it establishes Jeremy is guilt y and you hate to face that reality.

The forensic evidence establishes Sheila didn't load a gun, didn't fire a gun, didn't beat anyone, didn't kill anyone else and didn't kill herself.

The forensic evidence proves someone else was at WHF who killed everyone and then left the scene.   Since you prefer believing Sheila killed everyone you ignore it.  It amounts to dishonesty on your part to deny it exists. Saying you don't believe such evidence though you have no way to refute it would be one thing.  But you always go the extra mile and say it doesn't exist.  You not only demonstrate your extreme bias when you do that but dishonesty because you have been reminded countless time it exists and when challenged to refute the evidence you have failed miserably.

His lawyers don't have the luxury of living in fantasyland they have to face this evidence and are forced to try to find a way to refute it.  To date they have been unable to do so and unless they can they have no hope of establishing Jeremy's innocence and getting him out of prison.

[Jan]

So he actually said something up his sleeve 'to get Jeremy convicted'?

no don't think so.

[lookout]

 I'd have seen the evidence if there'd been any. This is why I asked the question.

[lookout]

 Just because 5 people are dead at the scene doesn't tell me anything apart from the fact that they were all shot.