13 bullet cases in m/bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on them...

[scipio_usmc]

Essex police destroyed the batch of crime scene ammunition, despite an order being in force for them not to be in 1996...

There was no order in force. Standard policy was violated not some order and that policy was unintentionally violated since they had no idea that he had any ongoing appeal.

[scipio_usmc]

Looking at his statement I see that it was a mistake to make my chart from the allegations of Jeremy supporters.  Here is one that is true to his statement merged with the wound sizes Vanezis provided with those he could not tie from the rifling marks in yellow:

Master Bedroom

Nevill
PV/2  (Shoulder) 3/16"
Arm/chest Graze wound 3/16"-DRH/5 
PV/10 (lip) 5/16"         
PV/11 (jaw) 5/16"
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11

June

PV/23 lower chest 3/16"
PV/26 above right ear 3/16"
PV/24 right upper chest 1/2"
PV/25 between eyes 3/16"
DRH/35a lower neck 1/4"
DRH/35b forearm 3/16"
DRH/9 knee 1/4"

Sheila
PV/19 chin 3/16"
PV/20 neck 1/4"

Kitchen

Nevill
PV/3 top of skull 3/16"
PV/4 top of skull 3/16"
PV/8 upper right skull 1/2"
PV/9 upper right skull 1/2"

Twins

Daniel
PV/34 highest wound 3/16"
PV/35 3/16"
PV/36 3/16"
PV/29 3/16"
DRH/36 3/16"

Nicholas
PV/30 3/16"
PV/31 3/16"
bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered 3/16"

[mike tesko]

There was no order in force. Standard policy was violated not some order and that policy was unintentionally violated since they had no idea that he had any ongoing appeal.

By 1996, they did know that Bamber was pursuing an appeal - I was released from custody in 1995, I returned as his approved Home Office visitor, acting as Jeremy's Mckensie man. Ewen Smith was acting for Jeremy into the build up of what turned out to be, the 2002 appeal hearing. We were in touch with Huntingdon Lab', and trying to make arrangements for the ammunition to be examined by DNA process, in the same way that the sound moderator was, and had been. so you have got your facts wrong. Jeremy's case was investigated by COLP between 1990 and 1992, and it was obvious that they did not investigate his complaints properly, or as it were fully...

Bamber has continued to this day to appeal his convictions, it was clear from a very early stage that he was never going to throw the towel in, and he never has, so to suggest that police thought he was not going to be appealing again by 1996, is a lie, and you, me and every other tom dick and Harry knows its a lie...

[mike tesko]

Not only does it make clear mention in his witness statement, dated, 13th November 1985 (under Citiation, at peril of being prosecuted, if he did not believe the contents to be true, or if he had wilfully stated in it anything false) that the two bullets PV/19, and PV /20, were WHOLE BULLETS, but he also produced hand written notes which also state that both of these bullets were WHOLE...

I cannot for the life of me, begin to imagine how anyone such as yourself can realistically interpret his evidence to mean that both bullets were, not as it were, WHOLE BULLETS, but fragmented parts of bullets...

Well, for the record, Fletcher used a variety of different descriptions when dealing with the batch of crime scene ammunition (bullets) - WHOLE, NEARLY WHOLE, FRAGMENTED, and HALF A BULLET. Now, if the two bullets, PV/19 and PV/20, were not WHOLE BULLETS, but were as you suggest in fact FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, then I can't begin to imagine why he didn't record these as such, in his hand written notes, and more importantly, in his witness statement, dated the 13th November, 1985?

He could have recorded that those two bullets were FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, or that they were NEARLY WHOLE BULLETS, but he didn't, he specifically recorded that both had been WHOLE BULLETS...

[scipio_usmc]

By 1996, they did know that Bamber was pursuing an appeal - I was released from custody in 1995, I returned as his approved Home Office visitor, acting as Jeremy's Mckensie man. Ewen Smith was acting for Jeremy into the build up of what turned out to be, the 2002 appeal hearing. We were in touch with Huntingdon Lab', and trying to make arrangements for the ammunition to be examined by DNA process, in the same way that the sound moderator was, and had been. so you have got your facts wrong. Jeremy's case was investigated by COLP between 1990 and 1992, and it was obvious that they did not investigate his complaints properly, or as it were fully...

Bamber has continued to this day to appeal his convictions, it was clear from a very early stage that he was never going to throw the towel in, and he never has, so to suggest that police thought he was not going to be appealing again by 1996, is a lie, and you, me and every other tom dick and Harry knows its a lie...

Jeremy lost his appeal.  The police who destroyed the evidence were unaware his lawyers were corresponding with the Home Office for 2 year and that correspondence meant they considered there to be an active appeal. It is not an appeal in any conventional sense where you have actual legal proceedings the police would be aware of.  There was no court action of any kind taking place at the time which is why it is quite foolish for Jeremy supporters to make the false allegation that there was a court order preventing the destruction of evidence.  It is an easy lie to see through.

[nugnug]

did he lose he appeal bloody hell i never knew that.

i wondered why he was still in prison 13 years later.

well that explians it all thankyou scipio.

[scipio_usmc]

did he lose he appeal bloody hell i never knew that.

i wondered why he was still in prison 13 years later.

well that explians it all thankyou scipio.

He lost his direct appeal in 1989.  As a result of the complaints made in 1991 the COLP investigation occurred.

In 1993 they petitioned the Home Office for a referral to the Court of Appeal.  This was rejected in 1994. 

The Home office agreed to reconsider the issue though they made no promises they would do anything.  For the next 2 years the defense attorneys and Home Office occasionally and infrequently corresponded. 

This is from the 2002 Appeal Court decision:  "In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about."

Police guidelines say that trial exhibits are to be retained until the period for filing an appeal expires or if an appeal is filed then until the appeal is concluded.  If a petition is filed with the Home Office and trial exhibits had not been destroyed prior guidelines called for retaining them until the Home Office ruled.  The Home Office had ruled police were unaware that the home Office was considering a new look at the petition. 

Their guidelines only covered trial exhibits.  Anything not a trial exhibit had no need to be preserved and could be destroyed or disposed of at any time. So far as I can tell this is still the case.  I have found nothing that requires preserving evidence that wasn't a trial exhibit for appeal purposes. Maybe NGB knows if there is some evidentiary rule concerning such but I have found none.  The only recourse seems to be in the case of exculpatory evidence that was not a trial exhibit by virtue of concealment from the defense.  It doesn't matter when such was destroyed it is considered wrong to have concealed it and destroyed it period.

[David1819]

He lost his direct appeal in 1989.  As a result of the complaints made in 1991 the COLP investigation occurred.

In 1993 they petitioned the Home Office for a referral to the Court of Appeal.  This was rejected in 1994. 

The Home office agreed to reconsider the issue though they made no promises they would do anything.  For the next 2 years the defense attorneys and Home Office occasionally and infrequently corresponded. 

This is from the 2002 Appeal Court decision:  "In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about."

Police guidelines say that trial exhibits are to be retained until the period for filing an appeal expires or if an appeal is filed then until the appeal is concluded.  If a petition is filed with the Home Office and trial exhibits had not been destroyed prior guidelines called for retaining them until the Home Office ruled.  The Home Office had ruled police were unaware that the home Office was considering a new look at the petition. 

Their guidelines only covered trial exhibits.  Anything not a trial exhibit had no need to be preserved and could be destroyed or disposed of at any time. So far as I can tell this is still the case.  I have found nothing that requires preserving evidence that wasn't a trial exhibit for appeal purposes. Maybe NGB knows if there is some evidentiary rule concerning such but I have found none.  The only recourse seems to be in the case of exculpatory evidence that was not a trial exhibit by virtue of concealment from the defense.  It doesn't matter when such was destroyed it is considered wrong to have concealed it and destroyed it period.

The police have much information including Julie Mugfords interviews and statements all under 'Public Interest Immunity' meaning it cannot be revealed

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm

340,00 pages of documents held under Public Interest Immunity (PII) and a further 367 photographs

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjhmYmIzMWItMTVkMy00YjQyLTgzZDAtN2Y0ZDg0OGY5NTg5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1

[scipio_usmc]

The police have much information including Julie Mugfords interviews and statements all under 'Public Interest Immunity' meaning it cannot be revealed

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm

340,00 pages of documents held under Public Interest Immunity (PII) and a further 367 photographs

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjhmYmIzMWItMTVkMy00YjQyLTgzZDAtN2Y0ZDg0OGY5NTg5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1

That doesn't provide anything about how many pages are whithheld under PII.  ANythign withheld is by definition not exculpatory based on your own source:

"The balance is between the public interest to withhold and the interests of justice to disclose. If the disputed material MAY prove the defendant’s innocence or prevent a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosure of the defence. Therefore, if there is a chance that the information may lead to an acquittal, the judge should order disclosure."

The PII nonsense is just that another BS argument from Jeremy's campaign team.   They have no valid arguments to make so constantly rely on nonsense.

[David1819]

That doesn't provide anything about how many pages are whithheld under PII.  ANythign withheld is by definition not exculpatory based on your own source:

"The balance is between the public interest to withhold and the interests of justice to disclose. If the disputed material MAY prove the defendant’s innocence or prevent a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosure of the defence. Therefore, if there is a chance that the information may lead to an acquittal, the judge should order disclosure."

The PII nonsense is just that another BS argument from Jeremy's campaign team.   They have no valid arguments to make so constantly rely on nonsense.

I am not implying any guilt or innocence here. The fact is PII are in effect on large amounts of information and there must be good reason for them to do so.

[mike tesko]

Not only does it make clear mention in his witness statement, dated, 13th November 1985 (under Citiation, at peril of being prosecuted, if he did not believe the contents to be true, or if he had wilfully stated in it anything false) that the two bullets PV/19, and PV /20, were WHOLE BULLETS, but he also produced hand written notes which also state that both of these bullets were WHOLE...

I cannot for the life of me, begin to imagine how anyone such as yourself can realistically interpret his evidence to mean that both bullets were, not as it were, WHOLE BULLETS, but fragmented parts of bullets...

Well, for the record, Fletcher used a variety of different descriptions when dealing with the batch of crime scene ammunition (bullets) - WHOLE, NEARLY WHOLE, FRAGMENTED, and HALF A BULLET. Now, if the two bullets, PV/19 and PV/20, were not WHOLE BULLETS, but were as you suggest in fact FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, then I can't begin to imagine why he didn't record these as such, in his hand written notes, and more importantly, in his witness statement, dated the 13th November, 1985?

He could have recorded that those two bullets were FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, or that they were NEARLY WHOLE BULLETS, but he didn't, he specifically recorded that both had been WHOLE BULLETS...

When neither could have been...

In other words, he lied about bullets, PV/ 19 and PV/20, being WHOLE BULLETS, when clearly they were not. In other words, he made a false witness statement...

[mike tesko]

Now, I am also very interested in the varying bullet weights given to bullet PV/20...

When first received at the lab' and according to its weight that is recorded in THE LAB GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD, bullet PV/20 weighed.         , yet by the time Major Mead examined it,  in April 1985, PV/20  weighed.         ...

[mike tesko]

Now, I am also very interested in the varying bullet weights given to bullet PV/20...

When first received at the lab' and according to its weight that is recorded in THE LAB GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD, bullet PV/20 weighed.         , yet by the time Major Mead examined it,  in April 1985, PV/20  weighed.         ...

I am not satisfied that the two weight references attributed to bullet PV/20, were in fact reference to the same bullet...

[scipio_usmc]

I am not implying any guilt or innocence here. The fact is PII are in effect on large amounts of information and there must be good reason for them to do so.

The amount of information held under PII is quite limited and none of it involves any evidence that could clear him, that kind of evidence can't be withheld.  The figures on how many documents are under PII from the campaign team is a made up figure.

[mike tesko]

I am not satisfied that the two weight references attributed to bullet PV/20, were in fact reference to the same bullet...

if Fletchers bullet weight, and Meads bullet weight, referred to the exact same bullet, then the difference in weight between them needs to be accounted for. A bullet does not lose or gain weight with the passing of time...

Based on the claim made by others, Fletcher the ballistic expert, got the weight wrong, but I don't buy into that tale. He didn't get the bullet weight wrong at all, and neither did Mead. If the bullet weighed by Fletcher and Mead were in fact the very same bullet, something had happened to PV/20 in the interim period (between 30th August 1985, and April 1986). There vmay be some truth in a rumour going around, which makes mention of why the difference in weight for the same bullet occurred. Some are saying that the reason for such differences in weight for the same bullet at separate times, was because blood belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell, encapsulated in and upon bullet PV/20 was removed from the bullet, and transferred in the sound moderator. Now, this of course is one example, which might go someway towards establishing that the differences in weight of PV/20 ended up becoming changed. The small flake of blood which has since been attributed to the sound moderator, could have been taken from bullet PV/20 during a cleansing process of the bullet. In addition to the flake being taken from the mangled bullet (PV/20), the bullet could have been washed and the material removed could have been dripped into the sound moderator, with a view of trying to replicate the phenomena of 'backspatter'.  The only person in control of the original bullet PV/20 and the sound moderator, was Fletcher, and there is something very disturbing about his account regarding when he came into possession of bullet PV/20, and one of the sound moderators (DB/1), since these were sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, yet Fletcher pretends he doesn't receive possession of these / those, until the 20th September 1985, despite information recorded in lab' records that he did...

Does the difference in weight loss between Fletchers bullet weight for PV/20, and Meads bullet weight for PV/20, relate to removal of blood from the original PV/20?

It would be interesting to find out exactly how much blood say in its dried format, would need to have been removed from the original PV/20, which equals the difference of weight loss between the Fletcher / Mead weights of bullet PV/20? Obviously, we already have the two conflicting bullet weights, so the difference between these is something that can be used as a yard stick in future experiments...