Allegations EP were tipped off about future legislation on evidence destruction:

[Jane]

I have reported you to the moderators. I don't recall any threads or good posts from you. Although you're post yesterday about what items were apparently destroyed was interesting.

It wasn't new legislation. It was several months away and not included in the Queen's Speech. So how would EP know about legislation which did not exist.

Yeah, it must be at least 24 hours since you reported anyone. You must be due a fix.

[susan]

  Hi Susan. Probably someone else read it on the internet and then "tipped them off"

Good point Gringo never thought of that

[gringo]

I have reported you to the moderators. I don't recall any threads or good posts from you. Although you're post yesterday about what items were apparently destroyed was interesting.

It wasn't new legislation. It was several months away and not included in the Queen's Speech. So how would EP know about legislation which did not exist ?

  Thanks for the "tip off"

[susan]

  Thanks for the "tip off"

Gringo destroy the evidence quick hahaha

[gringo]

 

Gringo destroy the evidence quick hahaha

[Adam]

The allegation from supporters is the police destroyed evidence because they knew a law was coming in which would stop them destroying this. The legislation was 'several months away'. Quite why this supposed important evidence was not destroyed before if it was important, I do not know.

It's time for supporters to put some meat in this allegation.

There needs to be sources of  -

The date the evidence was destroyed.

The date the new legislation was introduced.

At what stage the legislation was at when the evidence was destroyed.

How EP found out about this evidence if the legislation had not been discussed prior to the evidence destruction.

[lookout]

 I wonder if an informant came into play ?

[gringo]

The allegation from supporters is the police destroyed evidence because they knew a law was coming in which would stop them destroying this. The legislation was 'several months away'. Quite why this supposed important evidence was not destroyed before if it was important, I do not know.

It's time for supporters to put some meat in this allegation.

There needs to be sources of  -

The date the evidence was destroyed.

The date the new legislation was introduced.

At what stage the legislation was at when the evidence was destroyed.

How EP found out about this evidence if the legislation had not been discussed prior to the evidence destruction.

  Regardless of when EP found out about any new legislation, we already know that they didn't need tipping off anyway, Adam.
    DI John Soames of Special Branch in his statement to the CCRC in 2000 refers to a document that makes clear that EP were aware of a court order compelling them to disclose the material in November 1994. They had helpfully documented these dates.
    There is clear and indisputable evidence that EP were not only aware that evidence had to be kept they were also aware that they were to hand over for testing the retained evidence and yet within two years they had destroyed it with the connivance of Special Branch.
    EP themselves came up with the vague "date" of 1996 in their reply to the CCRC when the the CCRC requested the evidence that was protected by court order but they had destroyed.
    Adam still thinks the destruction was entirely innocent and just routine.

[lookout]

It was a deliberate and illegal act.

[gringo]

It was a deliberate and illegal act.

  And not even arguable, Lookout. It was a crude and desperate intervention and one wonders what it was EP suspected may be discovered that they were obviously determined to keep hidden.

[Adam]

  Regardless of when EP found out about any new legislation, we already know that they didn't need tipping off anyway, Adam.
    DI John Soames of Special Branch in his statement to the CCRC in 2000 refers to a document that makes clear that EP were aware of a court order compelling them to disclose the material in November 1994. They had helpfully documented these dates.
    There is clear and indisputable evidence that EP were not only aware that evidence had to be kept they were also aware that they were to hand over for testing the retained evidence and yet within two years they had destroyed it with the connivance of Special Branch.
    EP themselves came up with the vague "date" of 1996 in their reply to the CCRC when the the CCRC requested the evidence that was protected by court order but they had destroyed.
    Adam still thinks the destruction was entirely innocent and just routine.

I'm not interested in unsourced claims about what happened in 1994. This was five years after the last appeal and eight years before the next appeal. The police are probably always asked to keep useless evidence from optimistic prisoners. They have to draw the line somewhere.

Why hadn't Bamber and his lawyers tested this evidence before ? He had ten years.

Anyway. Sources that the police destroyed evidence because they knew that a law was being introduced (in several months) that would prevent them destroying this in the future. In the unlikely event the evidence would be important in an appeal,  which was six years away.

Questions previously asked on reply 20.

[lookout]

  And not even arguable, Lookout. It was a crude and desperate intervention and one wonders what it was EP suspected may be discovered that they were obviously determined to keep hidden.

Oh,lots of things I imagine, Gringo. The same as EP seem determined not to release any remaining documents. It's not as if they're any good to them after 30 years----------or are they ??

[Adam]

What was police protocol for destroying evidence. Prior to this legislation 'several months' after the police destroyed this supposed vital evidence ?

Was it that they had control on when evidence was destroyed. Or did they have to wait a set number of years ?

[David1819]

Why hadn't Bamber and his lawyers tested this evidence before ? He had ten years.

Because they were denied access to it

[gringo]

I'm not interested in unsourced claims about what happened in 1994. This was five years after the last appeal and eight years before the next appeal. The police are probably always asked to keep useless evidence from optimistic prisoners. They have to draw the line somewhere.

Why hadn't Bamber and his lawyers tested this evidence before ? He had ten years.

Anyway. Sources that the police destroyed evidence because they knew that a law was being introduced (in several months) that would prevent them destroying this in the future. In the unlikely event the evidence would be important in an appeal,  which was six years away.

Questions previously asked on reply 20.

  The "unsourced claims about what happened in 1994" are a direct quote from DI John Soames statement to the CCRC in 2000.
    The reason that "Bamber and his lawyers hadn't tested this evidence before" was because EP were refusing to allow them, even forcing the issue into court, where the court agreed with "Bamber and his lawyers" that EP should release the evidence.
    EP then prevented "Bamber and his lawyers" as well as the CCRC  from testing the evidence by destroying it in 1996. EP informed the CCRC of this in 2000 when the CCRC requested the court order protected evidence from them.
    Strangely EP didn't tell the CCRC that it was just routine after nearly ten years blah blah