I have been reading a section of the material in my possession, and discovered some knew pieces of information that I had not come across before (because there are still loads of documents I never got around to reading, because Jeremy says I have got everything he has and he was going through it all). I found out the following:-
Sheila's natural mother (Jay)was visiting London at the time of the shootings, and went on a European tour until late September, 1985, without wanting to see Sheila her daughter). However, elsewhere I have read that on the night of the shootings, Sheila had spoken to her natural mother on the telephone. Elsewhere still there is mention by Sheila's friend 'Christine' that Sheila's natural mother visited Sheila at the farmhouse for a brief uninvited visit before any of the shootings started...
I have seen where during the 'COLP 1991 police investigation' they got confirmation that PC West 'did not' make a written record of the conversation he claims he had had with Jeremy - hence why we now find that 'somebody else' has fabricated the content of the 3.36am 'C1' form, relied upon during the trial. Also, that by 1991, Malcolm Bonnetts 'Communications log' had not yet surfaced...
Further...
That 'witness statements' were 'edited', 'undated', 'unsigned', made up by staff who worked for the DPP., and Essex police. The names of Three 'people' who were responsible for retyping the edited statements, and supervising this exercise, without the knowledge or consent of the witnesses themselves, is now known to me. The DPP sent the originals back to Essex police with brackets around parts of witness statements that needed to be edited out, and once these revised statements were received by Essex police, typists retyped them omitting the parts which the DPP wanted taking out, and the retyped witness statements were then duly sent back to the DPP for them to disclose the doctored versions of these witness statements to the defence. Essex police retained the original unedited statements (without disclosing them to the defence at all), and they retained the copies of all witness statements containing the bracketed sections which the DPP wanted taking out (again, without disclosing these to the defence). What happened was, according to a senior supervisory officer from Essex police, was that the final versions of the 'edited' witness statements which were sent to the DPP, ended up, undated, unsigned. The DPP giving instruction for this to be done, and the dates could be added later, and where necessary, signatures could be added later...
Let us all now take time out, to take stock and to bear in mind, the 'Citation' at the commencement of all witness statements:-
'WHO STATES;- THIS STATEMENT CONSISTING OF ( ) PAGES, EACH SIGNED BY ME, IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND I MAKE IT KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDERED INTO EVIDENCE I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING WHICH I KNOW TO BE FALSE OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE'.
There is something 'drastically' wrong here, in the way these witness statements have been 'tampered with' by other people without the knowledge or the consent of the people in who's names they are being produced under. It's a 'Hillsboro' scenario all over again, with as few as three, or as many as four different versions of the same statements in existence, yet the DPP and Essex cops only disclosed one version to the defence. This practice has to be 'nipped in the bud', but no doubt it won't be. I myself only very recently had to tell a bent copper from Barnsley to 'get out of my house and don't come back', because the bent copper refused to write down the statement I wanted to give, the evil cop wanted to put into my statement what she thought it should say...
Bent coppers, bent cps, bent judiciary, they all play a role in the way the evidence gets handled, tampered with and introduced, nobody seems bothered that when bent people from within the system commit criminal offences of this nature, that they repeatedly get away with it, unpunished...
Things have got to change, it is not in the public interest, or in the interests of justice that the very people who are supposed to be seen to be upholding the law and all its virtues, are the very ones breaking all those same laws...
